nice that you can finally refer to yourself with an accurate self-assessment!
For people who have no partisan stake in the situation one way or the other, it is obvious that the story about a spontaneous protest in response to a youtube video was a deliberate deception. The people closest to the situation immediately described it as an organized terrorist attack. Why was Susan Rice saying anything different than that a week later?
we await for your half-brained answer to that question, which amidst all your bluster has never been adequately answered. Why the deliberate deception spuriously referring to a youtube video six weeks before the election, if on the evening of the attack itself it was described accurately?
I do agree that the Republicans' attempt at high dudgeon is a bit hard to swallow. Both sides look bad here; the Republicans for trivializing something to score points when it is really a lot more serious, and the Democrats for knowingly putting forth information that they knew was untrue.
The Petreaus led-CIA thought it was spontaneous. In fact they put that info into the talking points and never took it out. If you can explain to us how you know more than the CIA did at the time, and you can divulge this info without having to kill any of us, maybe you'd be so kind as to enlighted us? I'm reeeaaallll curious to hear this. One does have to wonder though why Republicans aren't anxious to call the General in to testify again. Surely as a private citizen now he'd be in a good position to blow the cover off this thing!
From Time:
The 100 pages of emails about Benghazi released by the White House on Tuesday evening provide a fascinating glimpse at the machinations of national security officials working under stress. The exchanges, which hashed out a set of talking points intended for members of Congress to use a few days after the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack in Libya that killed four Americans, tell us virtually nothing new about the now well-excavated story. But they do underscore a few important points:
No one doubted a demonstration Every version of the talking points–
which were first crafted by the CIA–asserted that a demonstration had occurred at the U.S. compound in Benghazi. “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault” on the U.S. facilities, read the talking points. (Those facilities included a State Department post and a nearby CIA annex.) Throughout two days of exchanges that involved the CIA, FBI, State Department, and White House, no one ever challenged that claim, and that language survived to the end, even as many other phrases were deleted.
It’s worth remembering that demonstrations against a notorious anti-Islamic amateur film actually had occurred in 20 other countries, a likely source of the early confusion. That undercuts the charge that the Obama administration ginned up a narrative about a nonexistent demonstration in Benghazi for political purposes–namely, to avoid explaining why al Qaeda-affiliated radicals were killing Americans in a country where the president had intervened militarily with apparent success. It is true that the final talking points were stripped of references to al Qaeda. But there may have been a reason for that. Early in the process, on the afternoon of Friday, September 14, the CIA’s general counsel warned colleagues about “express instruction” from law enforcement officials that
“in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements about who did this.”
