The Libya Cover Up

Jonsa said:

covering up what? She got her information from the intelligence briefing. What was being covered up? it makes no sense.

Click to expand...

What intelligence briefing was Rice at? Who conducted the briefing? Was Obama or Biden at that briefing? Was anyone from the administration at the briefing? Where is the record of that briefing. Was anyone from Hillery's state department at that briefing? If Obama and Biden was not at the briefing, why were they not? Was this mater so trivial that Obama and Biden could not attend this briefing?

Now please answer some of these real easy questions, and lets determine who knew what and when. And when you answer these questions I'll give you 50 more.

Krhazy said:

Reminds me more of the Bush administration's handling of 9/11 warnings and the push into Iraq, personally. Maybe we should go back and investigate those, while we're at it.

Click to expand...

I think that has already been beat to death, but be my quest, it is what it is. But right now this OP is about this particular Libya cover up.

MaggieD said:

You are freakin' kidding me. Blame the victim?? OMFG.

Click to expand...

Blame blame blame. Seems the most popular game in town,.

The people to blame for the ambassadors death are clearly the guys with the guns and rpgs.

Now that is out of the way, I guess the the fact that the ambassador (who by all accounts was one of the finest) went to a temporary essentially unguarded site on sept 11 that is right next to a cia station doesn't raise any questions at all. Well I find it rather odd that he'd do that, particularly if he felt in danger. I'd like to know why he did. The answer to that might shed some light on exactly what went down, because apparently the attackers knew the ambassador was there, that security was almost non-existent and that the cia station was a few 100 metres away.

The huge scandal amounts to some statements made about the video possibly being the reason on the sunday talk shows?? This indicates a massive cover up of what? This stinks of a manufactured phony scandal.

How about focusing on the really important questions, like who did it, where are they, what intell did they have, where did they get the intell, did cia activities contribute to the attack in some way such as retaliation, did the ambassador's activities contribute to the attack in some way such as retaliation. There's a helluva lot of questions to ask, but who where the UN ambassador got her info for the sunday talk show circuit is way way way down on the list in my opinion.

Unless of course you are one of those republicans like Mitt and Rancid who claim obama is an enemy sympathizer. Now that is disgusting politics.

jerry7 said:

When you have the President and VP campaigning on the slogan "Bin Laden's dead and GM is alive" and then Al Qaeda hits the US consulate in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 and kills 4 US state Department personnel it's a big hit on your campaign. Obama's 2 major accomplishments are Obamcare which a majority of Americans want repealed and killing Bin Laden. But now we find out that Al Qaeda's resurgence coincides with Obama's strategy of "leading from behind"

Click to expand...

What a crock. You know it was al qaeda? or is that the default terrorist group? "Leading from behind" - another republican bumpersticker meme that plays well with knuckledragger and paranoid parts of the base.

The impression that Obama was attempting to make about destroying Al Qaeda and terrorists has been shattered. The fact that the US lost its first Ambassador since Jimmy Carter's presidency reminds people of the eerie similarities between the two.
The cover up is that the administration tried to shift responsibility away from Al Qaeda onto an obscure movie that nobody has seen for political reasons. How many riots throughout the Middle East took place after the administration called the Muslim world's attention to the video? How many deaths and injuries accurred in these riots? How much property was destroyed? How much ill will was stirred up towards the US because of the phony US apologies for a movie that wasn't even relevant up to that point?

Click to expand...

So its a cover up for political reasons that no sane person could hope to pull off. right. Well considering that the Egyptians were already pretty riled as were a number of other muslim groups inthe middle east, (of course none of them talk to each other) prior to the attack, and that the small number of protesters waited until for the symbolism associated with the date 9/11 to start protesting, your attempt to place the blame on Obama for the riots and deaths are nothing more than a ridiculous ungrounded political accusation that is devoid of facts.

As for the "apologies" once again you demonstrate that the right is semantically challenged and does not have a complete grasp on the english language. Show me one time that obama has apologized for america - just once anywhere at anytime.

amazing to watch you guys manufacture a cover up with such odious political motivation when 4 men died. NOthing like trying to exploit a tragedy for political gain.

Jonsa said:

Blame blame blame. Seems the most popular game in town,.

The people to blame for the ambassadors death are clearly the guys with the guns and rpgs.

Now that is out of the way, I guess the the fact that the ambassador (who by all accounts was one of the finest) went to a temporary essentially unguarded site on sept 11 that is right next to a cia station doesn't raise any questions at all. Well I find it rather odd that he'd do that, particularly if he felt in danger. I'd like to know why he did. The answer to that might shed some light on exactly what went down, because apparently the attackers knew the ambassador was there, that security was almost non-existent and that the cia station was a few 100 metres away.

The huge scandal amounts to some statements made about the video possibly being the reason on the sunday talk shows?? This indicates a massive cover up of what? This stinks of a manufactured phony scandal.

How about focusing on the really important questions, like who did it, where are they, what intell did they have, where did they get the intell, did cia activities contribute to the attack in some way such as retaliation, did the ambassador's activities contribute to the attack in some way such as retaliation. There's a helluva lot of questions to ask, but who where the UN ambassador got her info for the sunday talk show circuit is way way way down on the list in my opinion.

Unless of course you are one of those republicans like Mitt and Rancid who claim obama is an enemy sympathizer. Now that is disgusting politics.

Click to expand...

Why is it a phony scandal when it's proven that this particular embassy requested additional security twice this year and was turned down? Why is it phony when the first words from the President's mouth were that it was about some stupid YouTube video? Why were there not reinforced doors at that embassy? That's common. Certainly in that area of the world it's a no-brainer. Why wasn't there a damned contingent of marines at that embassy? Why were the only guards Libyan and embassy security personnel? Why, with all the money our country spends on intelligence, with all of the freedoms Americans have given up in the name of security, did we not even know the attack was coming? That is failure by any yardstick. Americans don't like failures of this magnitude.

Your politics in Canada may be all lovey and dovey, but that's not how we roll here in the United States. Be glad we question. Be happy we criticize. Because of our heightened sense of duty and responsibility, because we demand accountability and won't rest 'til we have it, Canada can coast through safe and sound with a national security budget just 3% that of the United States. Just sayin...

Taylor said:

It sure looks that way. There's no other way to describe their repeated attempts to try to blame it on a youtube video. Obama went to Vegas the next day to do fundraising. Pretty damn stupid.

Click to expand...

Amazing. Obama should have done what exactly? How does Obama continuing on his planned agenda have anything to do with this situation?

As to your contention that there is no other explanation for their repeated attempts to "blame the video", I contend that you lack a decent imagination. I can think of a lot of way better reasons without even trying.

1. CIA wanted time to assess damage
2, Misdirection is a common tactic and using public media gives it a certain extra weight with the perps who might have gotten a tad sloppy or gotten pissed and made an annoucement taking credit
3. the ambassador was on a secret mission that may or may not have been compromised, so admit nothing.
4. CIA was screwing with some militants in a black ops and the militants wanted revenge. Can't very well say that.

Now those are way way more plausible than trying to stupidly cover up the nature of the attack for dubious political re-election purposes.

CNN has a video from an interview with Hillary taking full responsibility in that "but not really wink wink" sort of way from the clip they showed.

Jonsa said:

What a crock. You know it was al qaeda? or is that the default terrorist group? "Leading from behind" - another republican bumpersticker meme that plays well with knuckledragger and paranoid parts of the base.

Click to expand...

The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali – if investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration, with weeks until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.
Libya Consulate Attack: White House Mulls How To Strike Over Benghazi Attack

Jonsa said:

As for the "apologies" once again you demonstrate that the right is semantically challenged and does not have a complete grasp on the english language. Show me one time that obama has apologized for america - just once anywhere at anytime.
amazing to watch you guys manufacture a cover up with such odious political motivation when 4 men died. NOthing like trying to exploit a tragedy for political gain.

Click to expand...

I said he apologized to the Muslim world for a movie that had nothing to do with the consulate attack in Benghazi. Did you miss his UN speech?
*****************************************************************************************************
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
Full Text: President Obama's Speech at the United Nations General Assembly - NationalJournal.com

MaggieD said:

Why is it a phony scandal when it's proven that this particular embassy requested additional security twice this year and was turned down? Why is it phony when the first words from the President's mouth were that it was about some stupid YouTube video? Why were there not reinforced doors at that embassy? That's common. Certainly in that area of the world it's a no-brainer. Why wasn't there a damned contingent of marines at that embassy? Why were the only guards Libyan and embassy security personnel? Why, with all the money our country spends on intelligence, with all of the freedoms Americans have given up in the name of security, did we not even know the attack was coming? That is failure by any yardstick. Americans don't like failures of this magnitude.

Click to expand...

Yes, the embassy requested additional security. How many other embassies requested additional security. What was the protocol for allocating the money and at what level were security decisions made?

there wasn't a re-inforced door (?) because it wasn't an embassy it was a temporary "consulate" that was not recognized by the libyan government. A door even it it was 6 inches of steel isn't going to be much use if the perp sends a few rpg rounds thru windows or blows the wall open.

Like I said it wasn't an embassy it was a temporary location next to a cia station. The marine contingent was back in tripoli and iirc along with a cia fast reaction team. As for intell failure, there could be any number of reasons for that and it should be thoroughly investigated which I believe it is (not Issas witchhunt, but internally by the CIA, and intell community)

Failures of this magnitude? Is this greater than 9/11 or USS cole or WMD in Iraq or all the suicide attacks in Iraq and afghanistan? Is it just possible in this world that bad things happen and no matter what you do to prevent them that they are still going to happen?

Your politics in Canada may be all lovey and dovey, but that's not how we roll here in the United States. Be glad we question. Be happy we criticize. Because of our heightened sense of duty and responsibility, because we demand accountability and won't rest 'til we have it, Canada can coast through safe and sound with a national security budget just 3% that of the United States. Just sayin...

Click to expand...

Now that is just hubris. Yes, our national security budget is way less than yours because we don't have a bloated beast sucking up $44 billion and 3300 pages of "justification" this year. We tend to roll a lot more efficiently and of course we only have 36 million people.

Since over 90% of those 36 million live within 100 miles of the american border, we are well aware of the benefits of living next to the US.

But lets just set the record straight:
a) we are happy to criticize, we do vociferously when we percieve it to be necessary
b) we have a very keen sense of duty and responsibility ( you might ask your military in Afghanistan or in IraqI or in a few other deployments that are not to be mentioned) You must be aware that for the first time in modern US military history, a foreign commander commanded US combat troops on the ground in a war - guess what nationality he was.
c) we also demand accountability and we are way less tolerant of waste and excess
d) I beleive the Mounties came up with the phrase "we always get our man".

We don't coast on anyone's dime. We do our duty as we perceive it to be. the fact that our "brand" in the world is viewed far more favourably in some circles than the US, makes us a useful partner. The fact si our new immigrant citizens tend to be fiercely protective of the opportunities we provide them and their families, which in turn tends to make them vigilant within their communities for fanatics and nutbars. Its a "quirk" that has paid off on numerous occasions. With fingers crossed, we havent had a terrorist attack in Canada despite our fighting Islamists abroad.

Just sayin'....

Jonsa said:

So its a cover up for political reasons that no sane person could hope to pull off. right. Well considering that the Egyptians were already pretty riled as were a number of other muslim groups inthe middle east, (of course none of them talk to each other) prior to the attack, and that the small number of protesters waited until for the symbolism associated with the date 9/11 to start protesting, your attempt to place the blame on Obama for the riots and deaths are nothing more than a ridiculous ungrounded political accusation that is devoid of facts.

Click to expand...

They only have to delay the truth until November 7th. The Obama administration has been covering up the truth on "Fast and Furious" for close to 2 years.

Jonsa said:

Yes, the embassy requested additional security. How many other embassies requested additional security. What was the protocol for allocating the money and at what level were security decisions made?

there wasn't a re-inforced door (?) because it wasn't an embassy it was a temporary "consulate" that was not recognized by the libyan government. A door even it it was 6 inches of steel isn't going to be much use if the perp sends a few rpg rounds thru windows or blows the wall open.

Like I said it wasn't an embassy it was a temporary location next to a cia station. The marine contingent was back in tripoli and iirc along with a cia fast reaction team. As for intell failure, there could be any number of reasons for that and it should be thoroughly investigated which I believe it is (not Issas witchhunt, but internally by the CIA, and intell community)

Failures of this magnitude? Is this greater than 9/11 or USS cole or WMD in Iraq or all the suicide attacks in Iraq and afghanistan? Is it just possible in this world that bad things happen and no matter what you do to prevent them that they are still going to happen?

Now that is just hubris. Yes, our national security budget is way less than yours because we don't have a bloated beast sucking up $44 billion and 3300 pages of "justification" this year. We tend to roll a lot more efficiently and of course we only have 36 million people.

Since over 90% of those 36 million live within 100 miles of the american border, we are well aware of the benefits of living next to the US.

But lets just set the record straight:
a) we are happy to criticize, we do vociferously when we percieve it to be necessary
b) we have a very keen sense of duty and responsibility ( you might ask your military in Afghanistan or in IraqI or in a few other deployments that are not to be mentioned) You must be aware that for the first time in US military history, a foreign commander commanded US combat troops on the ground in a war - guess what nationality he was.
c) we also demand accountability and we are way less tolerant of waste and excess
d) I beleive the Mounties came up with the phrase "we always get our man".

We don't coast on anyone's dime. We do our duty as we perceive it to be. the fact that our "brand" in the world is viewed far more favourably in some circles than the US, makes us a useful partner. The fact si our new immigrant citizens tend to be fiercely protective of the opportunities we provide them and their families, which in turn tends to make them vigilant within their communities for fanatics and nutbars. Its a "quirk" that has paid off on numerous occasions. With fingers crossed, we havent had a terrorist attack in Canada despite our fighting Islamists abroad.

Just sayin'....

Click to expand...

You wouldn't have gotten that "hubris" from me had you not insulted Ryan with your smarty-pants nickname for him. Americans very rarely accept that "bad things just happen" when it comes to extremists killing our unarmed civilians abroad.

Jonsa said:

Amazing. Obama should have done what exactly? How does Obama continuing on his planned agenda have anything to do with this situation?

As to your contention that there is no other explanation for their repeated attempts to "blame the video", I contend that you lack a decent imagination. I can think of a lot of way better reasons without even trying.

1. CIA wanted time to assess damage
2, Misdirection is a common tactic and using public media gives it a certain extra weight with the perps who might have gotten a tad sloppy or gotten pissed and made an annoucement taking credit
3. the ambassador was on a secret mission that may or may not have been compromised, so admit nothing.
4. CIA was screwing with some militants in a black ops and the militants wanted revenge. Can't very well say that.

Now those are way way more plausible than trying to stupidly cover up the nature of the attack for dubious political re-election purposes.

Click to expand...

None of those make any sense. None explain why you would want to blame it on a video. Had it been all cloak and dagger like you suggest, CNN would not have been able to casually walk in there picking up a diary and classified documents. This was just pure, unmitigated stupidity on the part of the Obama administration.

jerry7 said:

The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali – if investigators can find the al-Qaida-linked group responsible for the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration, with weeks until the presidential election, is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on al-Qaida is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group's profile in the region, alienate governments the U.S. needs to fight it in the future and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Details on the administration's position and on its search for a possible target were provided by three current and one former administration official, as well as an analyst who was approached by the White House for help. All four spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the high-level debates publicly.
Libya Consulate Attack: White House Mulls How To Strike Over Benghazi Attack

Click to expand...

thanks for the link. most informative. It appears there are a lot of unaswered questions in the investigation. Isn't it a refreshing change to have an administration that doesn't knee-jerk a cowboy reaction.

jerry7 said:

They only have to delay the truth until November 7th. The Obama administration has been covering up the truth on "Fast and Furious" for close to 2 years.

Click to expand...

Sorry, just can't buy the coverup story on benghzi.
As for F&F, wasn't there an investigation? Hasn't it already issued a report?

MaggieD said:

You wouldn't have gotten that "hubris" from me had you not insulted Ryan with your smarty-pants nickname for him. Americans very rarely accept that "bad things just happen" when it comes to extremists killing our unarmed civilians abroad.

Click to expand...

Rancid was not a reference to ryan. It was a reference to Preibus who on sept 12 in the morning tweeted that Obama sympathized with the attackers, doubling down on Romney's doubling down from the night before. ON the political front I can't think of a more odious and offensive accusation that essentially calling the president an enemy sympathizer which is another term for traitor.

I did not intend to dismiss the entire issue as "bad things happen". I meant to suggest that intelligence is not an exact science and bad things can happen when bad guys want to do bad things. I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression there,

Taylor said:

None of those make any sense. None explain why you would want to blame it on a video. Had it been all cloak and dagger like you suggest, CNN would not have been able to casually walk in there picking up a diary and classified documents. This was just pure, unmitigated stupidity on the part of the Obama administration.

Click to expand...

Really? Well, what happened to the CIA agents stationed a few hundred metres away? who was in charge when the ambassador was killed? the documents found were "sensitive" which means they weren't necessarily classified as confidential, secret or top secret, so the CIA saying that no classified documents were left behind could be true. NOtwithstanding the entire aftermath was a cluster***k.

All of my examples make sense. Read #2 again. And, if as i suggest it was cloak and dagger, the fact that the house was left unsecured could have been a judgement by CIA personnel that there was nothing of value left behind.

I don't presume to have the answer,I was just make more plausible suggestions than this idea of a cover up because it was not immediately announced as a terror attack. Foolish rush to judgement, but I suppose that is almost par for the course on the right.

Zyphlin said:

Since I don't expect random internet pictures to be in any way honest, and don't have much expectation for those that use it to point out the obvious issues of honesty within the pictures, allow me to highlight two things...

First, when discussing a SINGULAR term of Obama, it would perhaps be appropriate to at LEAST give acknowledgement to the differences regarding the TIME one has to garner those numbers.

But my point was not really the density of incidents per year, but rather that there were a dozen incidents under Bush and Republicans didn't have an issue with a single blessed one of them. This goes to the next conclusion (that this is nothing more than partisan foolishness).

For example, pointing out that Bush's first term total was 6 attacks and 30. Still, greater than Obama's, but is a bit more fair and honest means of viewing it rather than showing 8 years compared to 4 and just acting like those are naturally easily equivalent.

Second, it fails to address the fact that the issues people have with this in terms of Obama is not singularly...among all those who are upset...about the fact that an attack happened and our people died. Rather, that it was the seemingly misrepresentation for WEEKS of placing a blame on an entirely different, seemingly unconnected, focus passing it off as an unpredictable spontaneous attack in opposition to bigotry rather than an orchestrated, planned terrorist attack that we didn't take precautions against.

Click to expand...

I was giving you folks credit for understanding that Bush served two terms versus Obama's (so far) one. But you are right -- that's probably giving too much credit.

Second, the claim that there was misrepresentation for weeks is simply false -- nor do I think anyone actually gives a damn about what confusion there was. The issue some people have with this is that it's Obama so they have to find something to moan about.

jerry7 said:

I said he apologized to the Muslim world for a movie that had nothing to do with the consulate attack in Benghazi. Did you miss his UN speech?
*****************************************************************************************************
That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.
Full Text: President Obama's Speech at the United Nations General Assembly - NationalJournal.com

Click to expand...

yes but I don't see any apology there at all. In fact the next few paragraphs explain the American position quite succintly. This seems to be another example of semantic distortion. Where is the apology? exactly what words in the above and the additional below constitute an apology. I'll wait for enlightenment.

Obama also said:
"I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.

We do so not because we support hateful speech, but because our Founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views, and practice their own faith, may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can become a tool to silence critics, or oppress minorities. We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech – the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

I know that not all countries in this body share this understanding of the protection of free speech. Yet in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how we respond. And on this we must agree: there is no speech that justifies mindless violence."[/quote]

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Why is it a phony scandal when it's proven that this particular embassy requested additional security twice this year and was turned down?

Click to expand...

It's phony because it was a relatively low-level administrative decision, and not one made by political types. It would be one thing if the focus was on the people actually involved in the decision, but that is not the case here. It's just another bogus attack on President Obama.

Why is it phony when the first words from the President's mouth were that it was about some stupid YouTube video?

Click to expand...

In that respect it's bogus because the first intelligence reports -- both ours and the Libyans -- suggested that it was related to the Youtube video. This was an understandable conclusion as the incident came in close proximity, both in time and place, to the Egypt protests. The NYT also reported that they interviewed an individual who was involved in the Benghazi attack and that person was ranting about the Youtube video. They stand by their report.

Why were there not reinforced doors at that embassy? That's common. Certainly in that area of the world it's a no-brainer. Why wasn't there a damned contingent of marines at that embassy? Why were the only guards Libyan and embassy security personnel? Why, with all the money our country spends on intelligence, with all of the freedoms Americans have given up in the name of security, did we not even know the attack was coming? That is failure by any yardstick. Americans don't like failures of this magnitude.

Click to expand...

These are all good questions, but they are not good grounds to attack the president. Presidents don't get involved in designing embassy doors (though this wasn't even an embassy). Even if security had been better there's a good chance that the well organized attack would have overwhelmed the consulate's defenses. There's a reason that the State Department offers hazard pay for some posts. There are no guarantees in life.

Your politics in Canada may be all lovey and dovey, but that's not how we roll here in the United States. Be glad we question. Be happy we criticize. Because of our heightened sense of duty and responsibility, because we demand accountability and won't rest 'til we have it, Canada can coast through safe and sound with a national security budget just 3% that of the United States. Just sayin...[/QUOTE]

AdamT said:

Second, the claim that there was misrepresentation for weeks is simply false -- nor do I think anyone actually gives a damn about what confusion there was. The issue some people have with this is that it's Obama so they have to find something to moan about.

Click to expand...

I like how you bury your head in the sand, and call this cover up, nothing to be concerned about. Really. There are so many unanswered questions that once again Obama is keeping a lid on it is SOP. I could list 50 question which I have on this thread without no answer. Maybe you could give it a try.

The question is what intellliigence briefing did Rice get to come on the Sunday shows to say what she did.

I quote:
What intelligence briefing was Rice at? Who conducted the briefing? Was Obama or Biden at that briefing? Was anyone from the administration at the briefing? Where is the record of that briefing. Was anyone from Hillery's state department at that briefing? If Obama and Biden was not at the briefing, why were they not? Was this mater so trivial that Obama and Biden could not attend this briefing?

Now please answer some of these real easy questions, and lets determine who knew what and when. And when you answer these questions I'll give you 50 more.

Sec/State Clinton has now fallen on her sword. Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security - CNN.com

Give me a break, now Hillery wants to cover for Obama, maker herself incompetent.

"I take responsibility," Clinton said during a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed on September 11.

"I take this very personally," Clinton said. "So we're going to get to the bottom of it, and then we're going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we're going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice."

Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security - CNN.com

All she did is make for more unanswered questions. Who gave Rice the intel to go on the Sunday shows and say it was a spontaneous event. When the state department came before congress and said they were in real time communications within Libya as the terrorist attacked was in progress. This is a coverup of the worst kind to save Obama before the election. And now we see Hillery taking a bullet for Obama. Now making her incompetent and dishonest.

nota bene said:

Sec/State Clinton has now fallen on her sword. Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security - CNN.com

Click to expand...

Yes, Obama and his administration is a failure, now Hillery as you say has fallen on her sward for Obama. The problem is Obama is the commander in chief, is he going to fire Hillery? No way in hell, she took one for Obama. Come November they both will loose their jobs. And good to get rid of them both and the rest of the Obama clan.

jerry7 said:

They only have to delay the truth until November 7th. The Obama administration has been covering up the truth on "Fast and Furious" for close to 2 years.

Click to expand...

You just blew all your credibilty if you indeed ever had any.