Rickyp, your post is crap, like usual. That NBC link said nothing. You rely on a few meager paragraphs to summarize the entire report? I know you despise Fox, but
Catherine Herridge does more national security reporting than the entire network of NBC does.
Fox News was first to report on September 17, 2012, one day after Rice's controversial Sunday talk show appearances, that there were no protests when the attack unfolded.
"One day after the assault, on 9/12/12, the first CIA assessment about the attacks, a September 12th Executive update, said ‘the presence of armed assailants from the incident’s outset suggests this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest,” investigators found. And while intelligence gaps remain, "No witness has reported believing at any point that the attacks were anything but terrorist acts,” the report added.
On Saturday September 14, 2012, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes wrote in an email titled "PREP CALL with Susan," that one of the goals for the administration's public statements should be "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy." The House report says these conclusions were "incorrect."
Judicial Watch, not Congress, obtained the Rhodes email as the result of a federal lawsuit.
Read that carefully and note:
1. No one on scene ever thought it was anything other than terrorism.
2. The White House (Rhodes) stressed the video and it was "not a broader failure of policy." Yet, this report says both of those are untrue. Funny how NBC missed that.
3. Fox News was the first to report (correctly) that there was no connection between the video and the attack.
4. The White House obstructed Congress' investigation so that only a lawsuit by Judicial Watch forced the Administration to produce Rhodes' email.
Live and learn, rickyp.
Why should the investigations continue? (from the article)
The report found the CIA's Office of Public Affairs made three “substantive” changes to the talking points that included the removal of references to Al Qaeda and swapping the word "attacks" with "demonstrations." It is not clear from the publicly available, and heavily redacted emails exactly who made the changes and who directed them, since the CIA public affairs office would be unlikely to make these changes unilaterally.
To put it bluntly, no one has been held accountable. We don't know who made those changes.
Now, to your ridiculous post. Bbauska asked you to answer four questions. You dodged. For example: "1) Was there sufficient security?" The summary says, ". . . the military and the Central Intelligence Agency responded appropriately during the attacks." That is not an answer. Security would be forces available for defense at the outset, not "response." The security was overcome in a short bit of time. So, your response is an epic fail.
2. Was the attack due to the video? You respond with ". . . the initial narrative. . . (that) the attack stemmed from a protest was not accurate . . ." but there was confusion. Again, that's a dodge. There is no evidence at all that the attack was related to the video. Rhodes email puts a HUGE political spin on it. You want to deny it, go ahead, but it's sheer obstinacy.
3. Was the White House/State Department prepared for an attack. Sadly, your miniscule synopsis doesn't actually address this. "No intelligence failure" is not the same as "prepared." It does not exclude bad decision-making or failure to anticipate the obvious. Plus, intelligence services knew about the terror activity, including previous assaults on the consulate, an attempt on the UK ambassador, etc. So, your pathetic article is no response.
4. Were the attackers random protesters? Again, your answer is not really an answer. What you did put seems to indicate that indeed it was terrorists and not a random mob.
rickyp wrote:Your point being what? That this republican lead committee and the 12 that proceeded it, are lieing (sic) or covering up?
Well, that would not be my point. My point would be you should do some research and stop being a fool. The only people lying and covering up are the White House. They refuse to give documents, buy people off (Morell hopes to work for Clinton's campaign, how sweet) and hold no one accountable.
Educate yourself and stop using Cliff's notes.
22 Nov 2014, 1:04 pm 
