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 point is not whether or not the CIA was correct in their initial assessment, the point is what was the CIA telling people in Washington. The CIA was describing the attack, in their initial assessment, as likely spontaneous. When asked to describe the events the people in the Administration were repeating what the CIA was telling them.
You are forgetting that long after the attack was known to have been planned, the Obama administration was still claiming that it was over a video.
Seems a regular reminder is in order -- they conveniently forgot so easily.
They are not forgetting. They are only focusing on the "initial reports" from the CIA.
They don't go past those first couple of days when Rice was all over the TV saying "the video did it".
By then the rest of the world was saying "terrorist reports" but the US can't go by foreign intelligence can they ?
Nope..they needed another week or so to figure out their own secret compound got attacked by the very people they hired to guard it.
[quote=WilliamSmyth;33487423]What was the CIA telling people in Washington within days of the attack?
On 10 September we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.[/i][/color]
And if this is really so, then why were the repeated calls for reinforcements (made 4 times over previous weeks/months) not finally acknowledged and acted upon???
Where does this buck stop? Obama? Hillary? CIA? Can't be Hillary, since she doesn't think the facts make any difference.
Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.
The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.
Before the Obama administration gave an inaccurate narrative on national television that the Benghazi attacks grew from an anti-American protest, the CIA’s station chief in Libya pointedly told his superiors in Washington that no such demonstration occurred, documents and interviews with current and former intelligence officials show.
The attack was “not an escalation of protests,” the station chief wrote to then-Deputy CIA Director Michael J. Morell in an email dated Sept. 15, 2012 — a full day before the White House sent Susan E. Rice to several Sunday talk shows to disseminate talking points claiming that the Benghazi attack began as a protest over an anti-Islam video.
It appears this confirms there was confusion as to what exactly happened.
Quote:
A third source told The Times on Monday that Mr. Morell and other CIA officials in Washington were weighing several pieces of “conflicting information” streaming in about the Benghazi attack as
the talking points were being crafted.
“That’s why they ultimately came up with the analysis that they did,” the
source said. “The piece that was coming out of Tripoli was important, but it was
one piece amid several streams of information.”
It appears this confirms there was confusion as to what exactly happened.
I think the main confusion was concerning which lie the Obama administration would tell. The information, as noted by the CIA sources, clearly stated there was no "spontaneous protest" and that the action was a planned attack.
It is always shocking to read the rationalizations that liberals have for this disaster and cover up, as any other president would have been impeached for this.
The GOP is trying to push this idea to stop Bridgegate.
The problem: Christies office started the event, his people moved it forward.
Clintons office did not start the attack, her people were the ones who died.
Benghazi is an event which both parties had issues, lack of funding, privatizing of the protection, and the one question which has never been answered ( why was the amb. there in the first place?)
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.
