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 No. 2 diplomat in Libya during the Benghazi attack testified Wednesday that he and many others knew the Sept. 11 assault was terrorism from the moment it happened, and he was shocked when the Obama administration said otherwise.
"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed." Benghazi whistle-blowers testify at House hearing
So you are saying that the administration ignored what Mr hicks told them and went with their own talking points
I'm saying that the CIA was asked to produce talking points for what occurred in Benghazi. The Weekly Standard just recently published those talking points. Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday talk shows align with the CIA produced talking points both in substance and language used.
So the better question would be did Hicks and the CIA talk? Why wouldn't the CIA be well informed when the larger facility that was attacked was a CIA facility?
My question is why didn't the Republicans not raise this issue at the hearings. Instead of asking Hicks if Susan Rice contacted him, why didn't they ask him if the CIA had contacted him for an after action report.
Her comments were based on CIA reports. Just how accurate would the reports be seeing as how the CIA was involved in some covert operations? The CIA has proven that it isn't the most trustworthy agency in government.
Since we depend on them for just this type of situation; why wouldn't that be the focus of the inquiries?
What in hell has Nixon to do with my question? The question is, Why did this administration continue to try to convince us that one thing had happened in Benghazi when it was clear that what had really happened was something totally different?
What the hell did Nixon mean when he stood on national television and denied all the charges. You folks keep forgetting that the people who were killed drew large salaries including hazardous duty pay and knowing full well that the section of the world where they would serve was one of the most dangerous they volunteered for it. **** Happens
Obama administration officials are finally letting the attorney for a Benghazi whistleblower get a security clearance — but the clearance is at such a low level that it will probably slow the congressional probe of how the administration handled last year’s terrorist attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Libya.
Victoria Toensing represents an unnamed government official who can help explain the reaction of top government officials to the jihadi attack on the U.S diplomatic site in Benghazi and killed four Americans last Sept. 11.
The official may also be able to explain if officials rewrote intelligence reports and took other actions to minimize media coverage of the administration’s errors and the perceived role of Al Qaeda jihadis.
I'm saying that the CIA was asked to produce talking points for what occurred in Benghazi. The Weekly Standard just recently published those talking points. Susan Rice's comments on the Sunday talk shows align with the CIA produced talking points both in substance and language used.
So the better question would be did Hicks and the CIA talk? Why wouldn't the CIA be well informed when the larger facility that was attacked was a CIA facility?
My question is why didn't the Republicans not raise this issue at the hearings. Instead of asking Hicks if Susan Rice contacted him, why didn't they ask him if the CIA had contacted him for an after action report.
The State Dept already said they knew it was an attack. They said this back in October before the hearings began. The State Dept said it was the CIA's doing that we were told movie outrage.
Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA was the one that made the final revision that Rice used. That was reported by the Weekly Standard article.
Senior White House and State Department officials played a much larger role than they acknowledged in drafting erroneous administration “talking points” about the Sept. 11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, according to congressional investigators preparing for a dramatic hearing Wednesday in the House.
The House Oversight and Government Reform committee will hear from the man who took charge of the U.S. mission to Libya after the Benghazi attack left Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead. SPECIAL COVERAGE: Benghazi Attack Under Microscope
The Obama administration’s handling of the assault, and the way top officials first characterized the assault as a protest rather than a terrorist attack, will come under new scrutiny.
“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go,” Gregory N. Hicks told congressional investigators. “I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning.”
The weekend after the attack, Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made the rounds of Sunday political
First CIA bullet point: We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. Second CIA Bullet point: The crowd almost certainly was a mix of individuals from across many sectors of Libyan society. That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qa’ida participated in the attack.
Susan Rice's comments align very closely with version 1 of the CIA talking points.
The State Dept already said they knew it was an attack. They said this back in October before the hearings began. The State Dept said it was the CIA's doing that we were told movie outrage.
Mike Morrell, deputy director of the CIA was the one that made the final revision that Rice used. That was reported by the Weekly Standard article.
I'm not talking about the final version. I'm talking about the initial version that the CIA presented for review. Rice's comments align with the initial version before the State Department input.
I'm not talking about the final version. I'm talking about the initial version that the CIA presented for review. Rice's comments align with the initial version before the State Department input.
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.
