Rice speaks out after! Security at Benghazi more than Adequate

[Dat1111]

Originally Posted by Wimbly

And they were still wrong.

It is a valid comparison - at least in terms of the double standard you display. the Bush administration sold you on dodgy claims of WMD and it led to over 4500 dead Americans and countless Iraqis it was okay with you; you claim the Obama admin is trying to sell you an excuse for Benghazi that only cost 4 lives and as far as you're concerned that should bring down the white house. Double standard.

So were the conflicting reports over the causes of Benghazi but don't try to tell us anyone was 'selling' the video story. If anyone is making a pitch for the video was it is Fox trying to sell you on the idea that the administration pushed this.

Ever consider the video 'mix-up' might have been a deflection? Some of the culprits ran away to other countries. Could it be the US didn't want them to know the heat was on while the CIA was looking for them?

Iraq was sold on a plethora of reasons. One of th reasons was that saddam was in breach of all the UN resolutions which he was. The whole point of the bombings in the 90s the UN inspections was to disarm saddam 10 days after the first gulf war. Not 10 years later. What is known is what Saddam did continued research in certain fields, produced banned weapons in clear violation of those resolutions including missiles that went beyond the range allowed, and maintained his ability to reconstitute his program within months. As the Final key findings report stated and Saddam himself the goal was to shake sanctions to get out from under the UN and too reconstitute fully. This is not disputed by anyone. What happened with Iraq was it was allowed to drag out too long. He had learned how too abuse the Oil for food program and obfuscate the UN inspections be piece mealing them some wmd while retaining the basic infrastructure. If you recall bush never recanted on Iraq as several others didnt.. The better argument would to be to compare the original 911 to benghazi 911. The lack of the previous administrations will to take out Osama bin laden on several chances was key. Not that it might of stopped 911 becaus it was khalid sheik mohammads plan but Osama hand picked the hijackers.

For Benghazi

There were a platitude of reasons given.. But somebody chose to remove/edit out the terrorist attack and ansar al-sharia. Which we have been told was for security reasons? The point is they keep changing there talking points. Rice waits almost 10 weeks to talk?
Im sorry its fishy. The Intelligence community changing the statemetn to the hearing a week ago. The guy is being called back now to the hearing because he either lied to them or is lying now.

We all followed this story they maintained the video thing for about 2 weeks plus. The video the day of showed no protest was there when the attack occurred. That information was available from day one.. The intent I see was too sew a different image than was happening because the election was in full swing and going down soon.

Theres no coincidence the damms burst open literally the day after the electoins regarding a multitude of scandals regarding patraeus, Another general, several women, FBI agent without his shirt on etc.

They want to get to the bottom of why the security requests were ignored, why a specific line was chosen to run with, and who pushed it.
2:00



Best Information they have.. FBI investigation ongoing? It wasnt, The fbi wasnt there for awhile days and days later after this comment I believe 2 weeks?. Talks about security of the personel key importance.. In her other interview stated that security was up to par. But it wasnt and they knew it because requests had gone up the chain.



Face the nation one was one of the most damming.. He stated this had been planned for months yet she comes back stating the best information they have is that it was a protest... Again the information shown as DEM-feinstein has stated there was no protest video proved that. She talks about the FBI getting the information? And correctly he stated they arent even there.. She says a protest occurred at benghazi it didnt. Now with the evidence they had this was 5 days later are you telling me nobody watched the drone video/etc for 5 days to find out what happened..

Same day as Rices comments on 5 sunday shows.. Libyan president attack planned for months.




Carney maintains Libya attack was not preplanned 8 days after



Obama on the 12th the day after.. This was pulled from the 60 minute interview before it hit the air.

[Wimbly]

So? we know there were mixed messages. This is not the subject of the inquiry. It's not about who called it what on meet the press. It's about the damn attack itself. Nobody but you cares about these vids - they add nothing.

And again, Petraeus and his affair were hardly going to cost Obama the election. House and Senate republicans knew about it before the election too, so I doubt anyone was bottling it up.

As for your clips, sorry only the first works in my region.

Rice says she thought at the time it was a spontaneous riot that was infiltrated, but repeats several times that the investigation is ongoing and they'll deal will new facts as they arise. So what's your charge? She changed her story when new facts arrived? No shit Sherlock. She said she would. This is not the story.

On the intel before the attack - she said there was no actionable intelligence at the time. That is a key word and I presume will be one of the targets of the investigation into whether enough was done to prevent it. That's the story.

Stick with that, not this bullshit semantic arguments over whether everyone clicked after the fact. After all they all agree now who did it.

[Dat1111]

Originally Posted by Wimbly

So? we know there were mixed messages. This is not the subject of the inquiry. It's not about who called it what on meet the press. It's about the damn attack itself. Nobody but you cares about these vids - they add nothing.

And again, Petraeus and his affair were hardly going to cost Obama the election. House and Senate republicans knew about it before the election too, so I doubt anyone was bottling it up.

Mixed messages the same day.. Not mixed messages for weeks that doesnt add up. The story keeps changing even as of what yesterday..

Some of the interviewers were even questioning rice that this was planned for months? She said all the best information shows it was a spontaneous attack that arose form a protest. Yet the video of obama in the 60 minute interview shows he felt differently the day after or at least thought so.

The Libyan president the day of said it was planned for months and a terror attack.. Yet carney days after was still pushing the line that wasnt pre-planned..

All the while that video was available from day one? Are you telling me nobody watched the video from the attack for over 8 days? The intelligence gave reasons and an attack was in the list. As stated the NIST I believe it is stated they didnt change the talking points. Then a week later they are stating oh wait we did? Thats why hes being called back into the hearing because he either lied straight face to the inquiry or hes lying now about changing the talking points.

It doesnt add up? How is it that even some of those interviewing rice had the suspicions to even say if this was planned for months. And that the LIbyan president even stated it was.

Yet they chose to go the protest route and maintained that line for weeks it seems. The videos say it all. Giving the evidence that has come out due to the inquiry we know that it was available from DAY 1. And that the intelligence community did put in the talking points it was a terrorist attack/and even specified a group ansar al-sharia..

So either somebody was lying to rice, fed her false information, or WITHHELD information intentionally or she was sent out to push a line for some intent. But Carney and others touted the line which made it even more dubious and he was touting it days after she did which to me is worse.

Again and her comments regarding the security was up to Par in benghazi. We know it wasnt that was obvious from before but even on that day. To me more than the line about pushing the movie was the severe lack of interest in the requests for more security here after it had been asked for several times. Given the fact of prior attacks at the consulate and others being forced out due to violence here.

That to me is the bigger story thats being obfuscated by them pushing the Movie issue early on. despite the fact that everybody else was stating the opposite including the Libyan president. Why was he ignored?

Since the evidence was clear there wasnt a protest on day one due to the information available on day one from the Video evidence as Feinstein stated. Why was it pushed Days weeks after by some in the current admin..

[Wimbly]

Originally Posted by Dat1111

So either somebody was lying to rice, fed her false information, or WITHHELD information intentionally or she was sent out to push a line for some intent. But Carney and others touted the line which made it even more dubious and he was touting it days after she did which to me is worse.

Since the evidence was clear there wasnt a protest on day one due to the information available on day one from the Video evidence as Feinstein stated. Why was it pushed Days weeks after by some in the current admin..

Wall of text on irrelevant point.

It's clear in hindsight Dat, just like your missing WMD. And once again the story here is what happened before, not who said what after.

If it was clear from the start - and obviously it wasn't or they wouldn't have been releasing and revising conflicting statements - then why would they withhold it? What's the motive? The only one making any sense is the spy game: protecting sources, running cover for an ongoing investigation. Trying to sell it as being over that crappy video for a week's worth of political point-scoring doesn't sound like a solid reason to me, no matter how bad you and Fox want to push it.

[Dat1111]

Originally Posted by Wimbly

Wall of text on irrelevant point.

It's clear in hindsight Dat, just like your missing WMD. And once again the story here is what happened before, not who said what after.

If it was clear from the start - and obviously it wasn't or they wouldn't have been releasing and revising conflicting statements - then why would they withhold it? What's the motive? The only one making any sense is the spy game: protecting sources, running cover for an ongoing investigation. Trying to sell it as being over that crappy video for a week's worth of political point-scoring doesn't sound like a solid reason to me, no matter how bad you and Fox want to push it.

WMD was found you might want to go back and the key findings final report..
Your referring to mass stockpiles.. Lets be factual here and not lie please .. And stay on topic your welcome to make a thread about wmd again and I can show each specific case, illegal program discovered, and what wasnt discovered.

Susam rice blatantly lied when she stated there was more than Adequate security at the embassy during the Sunday talk shows as well. Either she lied or was woefully ignorant of the situation on the ground which shows Incompetence. Again attention span of this white house seems to be a joke when it comes to there own foreign policy initiatives. Removing Ghadafi was one of those initiatives which led to this circumstance being possible.

Kyl Suggests Benghazi Cover Up

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., suggested on Sunday that the administration covered up information about the terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans on Sept. 11.

“I think there are three questions that have to be answered,” he said on CNN’s State of the Union. “Why weren't the warnings about the need for security heeded? Why weren’t the requests for help during the terrorist attack answered? And why did the administration think it had to cover up all of the things that occurred before by putting out to the American people a narrative that I think will turn out to be absolutely false.”

Kyl did not elaborate on his suggestion. However, much of the criticism surrounding the administration’s response to the attack has focused on U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who initially said on television that an anti-Islamic video was the cause of the attack, and failed to mention al-Qaida.

Intelligence officials have since said that the talking points Rice was given were changed to omit any references to al-Qaida, and Rice herself told NBC News this week that relied “solely and squarely” on the intelligence she received.

“In fairness to Ambassador Rice, there ought to be the widest public hearing of what led to her statements and others in the administration, particularly, obviously, if she is going to be nominated for Secretary of State or some other high office,” Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said on CNN.

“She’s had a distinguished career up until now. I don’t feel that I know exactly what she was told before she went on TV that Sunday morning. And I think we ought to find out before we decide on whether she’s a good or bad public servant.”

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Tex., said on CNN that she was “very concerned” about the administration’s response, citing information given during a classified Senate briefing Sept. 20, more than a week after the attack.

There are legite questions that are being ignored outside of the Rice comments about the video.

1. Security requests ignored but Rice says they had adequate security
2. Prior attacks by the state department/white house ignored because #1 was denied
3. They knew it was dangerous the Red cross and the brits had pulled out.
4. All the information was available on day one. The CIA said it was a terror attack on day 1, DRone video from day 1 shows no protest, DEM-Feinstein confirms this. Why was the senate intelligence committee denied access for so long. Why did they have to get information from the Media mostly till recently. The libyan president was calling it a terror attack the same day Susan rice said it was the video. Why did the white house maintain this line for 2 weeks. Why was carney out 8 days after saying it was the video?

These are legite questions. Why is there backtracking and people changing there statements includding the National intelligence? Why did panetta early on say Military force was denied because they didnt know the situation on the ground? Theres a bunch of contradictions it seems. Thats why the investigation is important. Just like the 911 investigation you know the one that happened so stuff like this wouldnt occur again.

This second failure being more epic because the policies put in place after the first 911 were suppose to prevent this. COMMUNICATION was either ignored intentionally to fit the agenda in libya or simply nobody cared to what the people on the ground were asking.

Somebody %$%$%$ up.. You cant just bomb a country throw 10 people on the ground then run off and say its a success.. It obviously isnt


http://news.yahoo.com/kyl-suggests-b...-politics.html

[Wimbly]

Originally Posted by Dat1111

These are legite questions. Why is there backtracking and people changing there statements includding the National intelligence? Why did panetta early on say Military force was denied because they didnt know the situation on the ground? Theres a bunch of contradictions it seems. Thats why the investigation is important. Just like the 911 investigation you know the one that happened so stuff like this wouldnt occur again.


Somebody %$%$%$ up.. You cant just bomb a country throw 10 people on the ground then run off and say its a success.. It obviously isnt

Bravo! At least we agree on something. Now wait for the effin' investigation to finish before you call it.

[Aquina1300]

She lied. She knows she lied. Obama knows she lied. Hillary knows she lied. Any American paying attention knows she lied. Anyone with half a brain knows she lied.

She'll get away with it. Obama will get away with it.

The American people will still vote themselves government goodies.

[Aquina1300]

Originally Posted by Tinbuk3

Yeah thank god Obama pulled out all our troops from the ME and closed Guantanamo and isn't involved anywhere else in the ME behind our backs eh?
And because of that that four trillion Bush left behind has been cut in half.

Man your smart.

ROFLMAO!!!!

yeah, he also stopped the seas from rising and healed the world too.

[deathmode]

Every member of the intelligence community says that references to al-Qaida were removed from the talking points by somebody. These are the talking points she used. Whoever gave her those talking points changed them and that is the fact of the matter.

Maybe she was unaware, maybe she wasn't, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that someone close to the White House pencil whipped it. Someone knows who did it and that someone knows why. Fingers are being pointed at several different agencies and those agencies are all pointing fingers at each other. Someone is lying through their freakin teeth.

[YWAHW]

wow so this is what Republicans are choosing to get mad over? What was or wasn't said in a UN speech....... You bunch smell of desperation. This shit is going to fizzle out like your birth certificate charges. You wanna get mad, get mad at the fact you are just sheep. Getting caught up in this manufactured scandal. How about you get pissed off at Obama over something he has down that isn't in line with the rest of the 2 party political charade we have in this country? At least then you will only look like fools and not foolish assess. Your republican boys in DC are just making noise b/c they've been told to. Shit I wouldn't be surprised to see McCain hugging and telling America how great Obama is in 3 years. You stupid shits will probably find something else to get angry about that is inconsequential in the meantime.