interesting ... but a couple of things jumped off the screen.
"And the culprit is not a White House adviser or State Department bureaucrat. It’s the intelligence community’s reliance on the media."
"It’s tucked inside the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi, which reveals a key source of the bad intelligence that made it into Ambassador Susan Rice’s famous talking points: the media incorrectly reported that before the attack on Sept. 11, 2012 there were protests outside the U.S. facilities in Benghazi when there weren’t.
And the CIA believed those reports, resulting in talking points that were delivered to Ambassador Susan Rice, ..."
We are expected to believe that despite the actual report from the CIA/Benghazi which is claimed to have ID'ed a flavor of AlQaeda as the culprits right off while the media (someone somewhere) blamed or kind of hinted at the video although the CIA itself never said so but the CIA believed the media.
The CIA has to be pretty bush league to have done that ... or pretty much in the tank.
I'm not denying that version but it sounds more likely that it was really the WH who believed the media story because it was most serendipitous.
Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.
Have anything relevant?
So again, take these two hypothetical situations:
1). Protesters take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
2). Terrorists take advantage of security lapses to kill 4 Americans.
What's the difference? The problem isn't who did it; the problem is that security wasn't good enough in the first place.
I invite both you and Hillary to keep up with the defense-because its not really a defense at all.
Let me be the first to notify you-that defense is going to be toxic for the dems.
Please. If most people knew what happened in Benghazi during the debates he would have gutted Obama. But most didnt-the media was dragging its feet, and there was still much information being obscured by the whitehouse.
Frankly, if the numerous scandals we didnt find out about until AFTER the elections were known before, it would have been a very different election.