Reply With Quote
hence there is nothing contradictory by saying that WH spin on Benghazi was self-serving, and that right-wing umbrage taking is also full of and politically motivated.
if someone disbelieves you, CC, it doesn't mean they go whole hog for whatever your putative political adversaries say. believe it or not, the blade of skepsis can be wielded in any direction.
hence there is nothing contradictory by saying that WH spin on Benghazi was self-serving, and that right-wing umbrage taking is also full of and politically motivated.
Terrorists claim credit for nearly any successful attack. Heck, if I spilled my coffee at the local Starbucks they'd probably try to claim that as a "terror attack".@ "not wanting to tip them off that we knew they did it"
THE GROUP PUBLICLY CLAIMED CREDIT FOR THE ATTACK.
They expected us to know they did it because they TOLD us.
i can'y believe y'all are falling for that excuse.
"WH spin on Benghazi"
Fox and Repugs peddle that LIE, why do you?
political calculations enter into public announcements. surely you will agree that this is so for Republican administrations, no?
Takes terrorists at their word, distrusts the US president. How amusing.
I believe that the CIA assumed it was a terrorist attack because they knew damn well they were holding members of a terrorist group in an annex to the embassy. That they (the CIA) were doing so in direct contravention of a Presidential directive telling them to do no such thing since January of 2009 was, I believe, a good reason for them to go along with a narrative that said 'we aren't sure who did this', which clearly aided the Obama administration's claim before the election of having gutted Al Quaida.
The fact is, what I believe is not proof any damn thing in either direction. A similar fact is that anyone who wants to make this into a conspiracy involving Petraeus' testimony or what was in the testimony or why he had to resign has no more than 'beliefs' to support their position.
Remember when the first conspiracy was that Petreaus had to resign because they were afraid of what he would say under oath? Now that he has testified under oath, the conspiracists don't seem to want to acknowledge that claim to have been debunked, so there is a 'moving right along' conspiracy that it was something else. Now Rep. Peter King of New York is saying that Petraeus is saying something different now than he was at first. Petraeus is saying he isn't. So who do you want to believe?
Give it up, already.
Absolutely!
I don't believe either side.
That's why I find it so sad that I everyone in here is so quick to believe that bull .
So this is run of the mill spin? Would you put a level of run of the mill to it? Would you consider it unethical? If BHO did watch them die on video, would that change it to not an average spin job?
Is this a cover-up, lack of command and control on the President's part or extreme incompetence?
Personally, on a personal basis, I have a personal belief that the Obama Administration had sooooo much more to gain from coming out and saying "Hey guys, Al Qaeda and its terrorist buddies attacked our people cuz they hate the fact we merc'd Osama bin Hidin'. They're pissed cuz I, da President, know how to find and kill the rest of them. Elect me cuz it's not a smart idea to change horses mid-stream. I'm a strong war President, yeahhhhhhhhh!!!"
All the Benghazi conspiracy theorists need to figure out if they're pissed that the White House didn't want to expose the secret prisons or if they're pissed off because they think the delay in information (of which they really have no business knowing) actually had an affect on the election despite the CLEAR fact that the American electorate couldn't have given two s about it anyway. And while ya'll try to figure out what is worse, choke on my black meat...honkeys.
Got fitted for your hat, I see.
Fox Covers Up Acknowledgement That Petraeus Was OK With Benghazi Talking Points
Fox News is whitewashing Rep. Peter King's (R-NY) acknowledgment that the Central Intelligence Agency approved the talking points that were used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice for an early assessment of the September 11 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya.
For two months, Fox has sought to scandalize Rice's September 16 interviews on the major Sunday news shows. During those interviews, Rice said that an investigation into the Benghazi attack was under way but that the current assessment of the intelligence community was that the attack was a reaction to a violent protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, which was inspired by a controversial anti-Islamic film.
On Friday, Gen. David Petraeus, the former head of the CIA, offered testimony before a closed congressional hearing on the Benghazi attack and its aftermath.
In an interview immediately after that hearing explaining what Petraeus said, King said that the CIA initially wrote in its assessment that attack was connected to an Al Qaeda-affiliated group, but that point was removed during a standard review by the broader intelligence community.
King said that Petraeus testified that he was not upset that the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from the intelligence assessment before it was made public. In fact, King made clear that the CIA OK'd the assessment after the reference to Al Qaeda was removed:
But when Fox interviewed King, anchor Megyn Kelly made no reference to King's earlier statement making clear that Petraeus was not upset that the reference to Al Qaeda was removed from the assessment before it was made public, or that the CIA OK'd the assessment Rice relied upon.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11...eus-was/191439
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_1...bi-signed-off/CBS News has learned that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) cut specific references to "al Qaeda" and "terrorism" from the unclassified talking points given to Ambassador Susan Rice on the Benghazi consulate attack - with the agreement of the CIA and FBI. The White House or State Department did not make those changes.
There has been considerable discussion about who made the changes to the talking points that Rice stuck to in her television appearances on Sept. 16 (video), five days after the attack that killed American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, and three other U.S. nationals.
Republicans have accused her of making misleading statements by referring to the assault as a "spontaneous" demonstration by extremists. Some have suggested she used the terminology she did for political reasons.
However, an intelligence source tells CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan the links to al Qaeda were deemed too "tenuous" to make public, because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence. CIA Director David Petraeus, however, told Congress he agreed to release the information -- the reference to al Qaeda -- in an early draft of the talking points, which were also distributed to select lawmakers.
"The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.
An intelligence source says the talking points were passed from the CIA to the DNI, where the substantive edits were made, and then to FBI, which made more edits as part of "standard procedure."
lol conspiracy
I see.
But there was strong enough evidence to base the attack on a cartoon...
So now you know absolutely nothing about classified information.
Typical.
don't sell yourself short CC, you're a tremendous conspiracy nut. you're without much doubt at all ST's top wrangler on Benghazi.
Will CC double down or fade to black?
doubles down, probably. dude is stubborn . . .
He's got to keep the dream alive.
Seems pretty clear to me...
The intelligence community assessed from the very beginning that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack." DNI spokesman Shawn Turner tells CBS News. That information was shared at a classified level -- which Rice, as a member of President Obama's cabinet, would have been privy to.
what seems clear?
So you wanted her to digress from the intelligence approved talking points and start divulging classified information on Sunday morning talk shows?
Double-down it is.
No, I wanted her to say they didn't have enough information to discuss it at that time.
How do you explain Jay Carney TEN DAYS LATER still sticking by the original story?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
