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.
The South Carolina Congressman, Trey Gowdy, a member of the House Committee that tried to investigate the Benghazi affair and was constantly stonewalled by administration people wants to question Susan Rice, under oath to get some truth about that day and what happened after it. He thinks that we must do that to get at the real truth about the whole thing and I have to agree with him. Check this plea by him to the committee to see just what he said and tell me if you agree or disagree with Gowdy.
Could it be possible that Rice DID tell the truth?
After all, she was under oath and is an appointed official of the United States of America. She took the same oath, sworn on a bible, that the good Representative took.
There is no 'real' truth. There is only truth. Rep. Gowdy's comments were a claim that Rice lied, couched in gentler terms. If he can't prove the lie, he would be well advised to shut his mouth.
Nobody was "lied to." These extremists aren't attempting to learn more about the incidient. Political posturing, as they dance on the graves of those whose lives were lost, is their interest. They've been soundly discredited by every person with credibility on this matter, including the DCIA. Their General.
Q Back to Libya. Ambassador Rice says on Sunday that it was spontaneous, and then we hear from the State Department that there’s not enough information to make the determination. But you’re saying that there is no shift, right?
MR. CARNEY: No, I’m saying that based on information that we -- our initial information, and that includes all information -- we saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack; that we saw evidence that it was sparked by the reaction to this video. And that is what we know thus far based on the evidence, concrete evidence -- not supposition -- concrete evidence that we have thus far.
Concrete huh? Like I've said before either the administration was purposefully lying or the administration put people in power in the IC that were either purposefully lying or don't know their azz from their elbows.
Quote:
Q I’m talking about Benghazi.
MR. CARNEY: -- reacting to the release of that video. And I will leave it to those who are testifying on the Hill to talk about, as they are --
Q The State Department said yesterday there was no protest.
MR. CARNEY: That’s not what you said, though. There were --
Q I’m talking about in Benghazi.
MR. CARNEY: Right.
Q I’m not talking --
MR. CARNEY: I’m not disputing that there was a protest, but what we said at the time is our intelligence community assessed that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo, okay?
Again, this is a moving picture, and people who, on the night of an attack or the day after, claim they know all the facts without making clear that what we know is based on preliminary information, aren’t being straight, and they’re in some cases trying to politicize a situation that should not be politicized. I think that’s what the President was getting at. And I think many other people felt the same way.
Q Jay, earlier you said the people who claim they know all the facts aren’t being straight. Why, then, were we told repeatedly by administration officials that this was a result of a spontaneous attack?
MR. CARNEY: Well, what I think you’ll find, as I’ve said several times now, is that when we provided the assessments that we had, based on the information that the intelligence community had assessed, we made clear that they were preliminary assessments -- preliminary assessments -- and that facts, as they became available, would be made known to you.
That has been the case from day one, and we have I think been pretty transparent about acknowledging when new information has come to light that has changed the assessment of the intelligence community, which provides these assessments to Congress, to the branches of government, to the White House and through us to the American people.
Q Right, but where is the threshold by which these preliminary assessments are made public? They were obviously wrong. They were wrong leading up to the attack, they were wrong in the initial aftermath of the attack. How is it determined when to use these assessments, preliminary or not, even though they turn out to be wrong? Isn’t there some concern --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we live in a society that values transparency, and this is an administration that values transparency.
Q So we were told these things for our benefit, even though they turned out to be wrong?
MR. CARNEY: I think that’s an editorial judgment that you’re making. What we are saying is that when asked what happened, we gave our assessments based on the information that we had at the time. And we made clear, in giving those assessments, that what we knew at the time might change as more facts were found in the investigations that were underway. We have made that clear every step of the way. Ambassador Rice made that clear on Sunday, September 16th.
And it is our sole interest, the President’s sole interest to find out what exactly happened, why it happened, what steps should have been taken to prevent it, what steps must be taken going forward to ensure that what happened in Benghazi does not happen again. That’s his focus. Others are focused on other things.
His focus is on the safety and security of diplomatic personnel who are bravely serving this country overseas, finding those who killed four Americans and bringing them to justice, and taking steps to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.
Could it be possible that Rice DID tell the truth?
After all, she was under oath and is an appointed official of the United States of America. She took the same oath, sworn on a bible, that the good Representative took.
There is no 'real' truth. There is only truth. Rep. Gowdy's comments were a claim that Rice lied, couched in gentler terms. If he can't prove the lie, he would be well advised to shut his mouth.
She was under oath? To babble on 5 Sunday TV shows?
She was under oath? To babble on 5 Sunday TV shows?
OK, then.
Speaking of babbling - I definitely wouldn't want to try and get between John McCain and a camera on any given Sunday.
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.
