Re: CNN Reports Dozens of CIA Operatives on the Ground During Benghazi Attack
Before I start, let me work through who said what. President Obama, the day after the attack, referred to it as an, "act of terror" in an address, and in an interview stated that it didn't "sound like your normal demonstration." Then on Sept. 16, Rice says it was because of a mob. Secretary Clinton stated 2 days after Rice that it was a terrorist attack.
The only person to have said it was not an attack from the start was Rice, therefore I will assume you take issue with this statement.
I'm working off this
timeline, FYI.
"Centrist" huh ? Lol...I don't think so. Look, if someone who was on the ground ( Mike Hicks ) testified they knew immediately it wasn't a "protest" then that's enough for me to call BS on your " miscommunication " theory.
You mean Gregory Hicks. Before you put any words in my mouth, the miscommunication I'm referring to is between Clinton and Rice. Rice clearly was not given the most up to date talking points, and said the wrong thing on the record.
I have yet to meet a " centrist " who justifies down to such a childish level what was obviously a cover up.
Spare me your personal attacks.
Oh yes the most sophisticated military in the world, a Government that can monitor just about every digital piece of data it's 350 million citizens handles in real time, had " communication " problems.
I guess our military has reverted back to tying two soup cans together with string as means for "communication" with the State Dept.
People make mistakes. Unless you're implying that government can perfectly execute anything they wish to do, which is obviously false. Again, the miscommunication was within the State Department. Not sure why you're pulling the military into this.
Again, your'e desperate attempt to mitigate what is by now to all people with a inkling of common sense, a cover up is beyond me. The White House Situation Room knew immediately, AFRICOM knew immediately, Hillary Knew Immediately and Obama knew immediately that there was no "protest".
Yeah, they did know, and they said that almost immediately. They never said anything to refute that it was anything but a deliberate attack on the Consulate/Annex.
Why do you like being lied too ?
If you could keep irrelevant commentary to a minimum, that'd be great.
I am SO surprised that now, months and months later,after Congressional testimony, after the stone walling from the administration that you actually NEED evidence. Keep those blinders on. Obama and Hillary need people like you, people that are all too willing to be manipulated
Coupled with the article at the beginning of this thread, I'm convinced the stone walling is about the CIA operation, and not the attack.
Funny, you being the arbiter of credibility when you can't see an obvious cover up. A lie ginned up right before an election to deflect attention away from a disaster. A disaster caused by millions of idiots electing a man who was the least qualified, and him appointing a women who had NO qualifications.
A cover-up of what exactly? I don't see what, besides this a potential CIA operation, is being covered up. Obama and Clinton went on the record saying it was a terrorist attack. Susan Rice, who might've not been given any talking points and came to her own conclusions, said it was because of a mob. This isn't a big deal.
You libs need to understand something. Talent and ability are important especially when the lack of costs people their lives.
Just to say it again, this sort of commentary is entirely irrelevant.
EDIT: I found an
organizational chart of the State Department for you. The information about Benghazi went up the ladder to Clinton, bypassing Rice, and we don't know that it came back down to Rice at all.
