Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 124,353
- 81,079
- 2,635
Then you must think Obama and Hillary managed to dupe 7 separate GOP-led inquiries and the rightwing media...Exactly what I said...you fall for the spin and then put it into the words that make you feel warm and fuzzy.The CIA thinks you're an idiot. They told Republican-led hearings that they believed the video was the catalyst for the attack.You have not been paying attention.WTF? She did #1, so why are you bitching? The initial belief was an Al-Qaeda attack as a faction of Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. That's what Hillary told Chelsea and the leader of Egypt that night. Where did she lie? By the next morning, Al-Qaeda rescinded their claims of responsibility and the CIA was informing the White House and State Department that the video spurred the attack. So again, where did she lie?Bottom line as it pertains to Hillary Clinton....
She had three choices the days following the Benghazi attack
1) Go with the information offered her by intel advisers saying it appeared to have been a planned terrorist attack
2) Go with her politically expedient excuse of blaming the attack on a protest that was spurred by an American exercising his first amendment right
3) Go with the typical mature response....we are collecting as much information as possible and will not guess at the cause until we have reviewed everything...
Yet...
She opted to blame it on our most sacred right (and most hated by many in the middle east)....the first amendment.
Enough said.
Within days it was determined to be a planned attack. Panetta, that day, told the white house it was a planned attack.
The fact that you fall for spin and rhetoric to cover her up is not my problem.
Start paying attention and stop being easily fooled by spin.
What they said at the hearings was that the video was one consideration being looked into and they were not able to rule it out until they were able to get to the site.
And the weak minded like you took it as "we said it was the video"
Panetta said he immediately told the White House that the theory that had most evidence to support it was the theory that it was a well planned attack.
Pay attention. People are easily fooled with spin by this administration.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.
Read more at: House Intel Investigation on Benghazi Clears Administration, Intelligence Community of Wrongdoing | National Review Online
Read more at: House Intel Investigation on Benghazi Clears Administration, Intelligence Community of Wrongdoing | National Review Online