freeman2 wrote:Hmm seems like Rice relied on CIA briefing to say that attack was not related to terrorisism.

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml ... plitPage=1

You might want to hold your fire.

The CIA doesn't write "talking points." They write "assessments" and speak of "levels of confidence."

The DNI and acting director of the CIA both said they didn't know who wrote the talking points. Today, the early reporting from CNN is that Petreaeus will testify that he knew right away it was terrorism AND that he did not know who wrote those talking points.

The Truth has yet to emerge.

Now it has....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... d%3D235362

Can we close the subject now?

freeman2 wrote:Now it has....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/1 ... d%3D235362

Can we close the subject now?

Um, no.

Why did Rice lie on 5 TV shows?

What did the President do, if anything, when told of the attacks?

If he issued orders, were they followed?

Who was responsible for editing "Al Qaida" links out of Rice's briefing?

Why did the President and Secretary of State keep prattling on about the video--since Petraeus knew it wasn't?

And, this is nonsense:

"The general was adamant there was no politicization of the process, no White House interference or political agenda," said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. "He completely debunked that idea."

How would he know what was going on in the White House?

Both the DNI and Petraeus' successor said they had no idea who removed the AQ references. So, if it wasn't the intel community that leaves . . . the last people to see Rice's briefing before she got it--the White House.

It's simple: the White House could have said, "It's under investigation. It's too soon. We don't know."

Instead they sent someone NOT in the intel community to go out and spread fertilizer. Why?

Why were all the problems before the attack ignored and requests denied?

There are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

This is the same CIA that gave Colin Powell intelligence to present to the UN making the case for the invasion of Iraq....(making Powell a liar to the whole world.)
The same CIA and FBI that missed interdicting the 9/11 terrorists?
The same CIA that failed to predict the advent of the Arab Spring. The same CIA that failed to predict or prepare for the fall of Communism?
I'd hedge on anything they gave me until it was certain ....

If Paula Broadwell was telling the truth in recent comments before the scandal of her affair broke , and she seems to have had access to some things, the CIA in Ben Ghazi had arrested some suspected Al Queada operatives and was holding them in the compound. A case of illegal extraterritorial activity that the CIA may not want to have come to light... Another reason they wouldn't want to broadcast that they knew who was responsible.

Rices comments on television were not important in the least. Trying to make a bid deal of it actually has reinforced the idea that Congress (in this case solely republicans) is populated by children.

rickyp wrote:This is the same CIA that gave Colin Powell intelligence to present to the UN making the case for the invasion of Iraq....(making Powell a liar to the whole world.)
The same CIA and FBI that missed interdicting the 9/11 terrorists?
The same CIA that failed to predict the advent of the Arab Spring. The same CIA that failed to predict or prepare for the fall of Communism?
I'd hedge on anything they gave me until it was certain ....

No, it's not the same CIA. It changes all the time.

But, to your point (such as it is), the Administration did not hedge. It certainly could have said, "We're doing an investigation and will not comment until we are confident we know what happened."

That's not what it did. Instead, the Obama White House sent someone they knew had no knowledge of Benghazi (per the President) to make precise claims about the attack.

That is the problem.

If Paula Broadwell was telling the truth in recent comments before the scandal of her affair broke , and she seems to have had access to some things, the CIA in Ben Ghazi had arrested some suspected Al Queada operatives and was holding them in the compound. A case of illegal extraterritorial activity that the CIA may not want to have come to light... Another reason they wouldn't want to broadcast that they knew who was responsible.

No one I've read--Democrat or Republican--buys her story.

Rices comments on television were not important in the least. Trying to make a bid deal of it actually has reinforced the idea that Congress (in this case solely republicans) is populated by children.

Let me be kind: that is a stupid comment.

The President knew or should have known this was a terror attack. The reporting is he knew within 48-72 hours. His Administration sent someone to 5 news shows to give false information to the American people. He also gave false information to the American people.

Why?

Why do you think it is "child(ish)" to be concerned when a President lies to the American people and directs his subordinates to give false information (whether Rice knew it or not, what she said was false)?

I went back and looked at Rice's comment-- her comments in the talk show track the CIA talking points to a tee. So at this point she is off the hook. The only issue is whether changing the Al Qaeda language to extremist is something significant. Petraeus offered a rationale--they did not want to tip off that the groups were being investigated. Let's assume that someone decided they did not want to use the term al Qaeda until they were sure--what's the big deal? Are you really demanding that our government disclose everything in real-time? The use of the term extremist is not a lie and clearly at some point the identity of the extremist group would have to be identified. Frankly, I think what Republicans are doing is detrimental to our national security, is unpatriotic, and is purely being done for political gain.

Before I respond in depth, a question: who in the GOP forced Rice onto the 5 Sunday shows?

First, let me retract the last sentence-- that is not helpful. No one forced her to go on the shows but there certainlyis a responsibility of the administration to talk about the situation to the extent they can and she stuck to the agreed upon intelligence assessment

fate

No, it's not the same CIA. It changes all the time

The team changes but not the results.. Go Mets.

fate

Why do you think it is "child(ish)" to be concerned when a President lies to the American people and directs his subordinates to give false information (whether Rice knew it or not, what she said was false)?

Hedging on releasing the suspected identities of the groups responsible for the Ben Ghazi attack pale in comparison to the abuse of intelligence, and the blaming of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. I would have thought that experience would have humbled those who'd defended that course of action.... (A lot of republican critics of this incident)

Childish? The behaviour by the chief republican critics is transparent and at times ridiculous.
Witness Senator McCain complaining in a press conference that his committee is being inadequately briefed,. while at the exact same time a briefing on BenGhazi is being delivered to his group. A briefng he misses in order to make his complaints.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-m ... -on-libya/

This is theatre and is of no real consequence. It only matters to Republicans in congress who have trouble looking at their roles as more than barking dogs.,
The caravan will move on.

freeman2 wrote:I went back and looked at Rice's comment-- her comments in the talk show track the CIA talking points to a tee. So at this point she is off the hook. The only issue is whether changing the Al Qaeda language to extremist is something significant. Petraeus offered a rationale--they did not want to tip off that the groups were being investigated. Let's assume that someone decided they did not want to use the term al Qaeda until they were sure--what's the big deal? Are you really demanding that our government disclose everything in real-time? The use of the term extremist is not a lie and clearly at some point the identity of the extremist group would have to be identified. Frankly, I think what Republicans are doing is detrimental to our national security, is unpatriotic, and is purely being done for political gain.

Thank you for the retraction.

Here's your problem: those weren't the CIA "talking points" according to the then Director.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus stoked the controversy over the Obama administration's handling of the Libya terror attack, testifying Friday that references to "Al Qaeda involvement" were stripped from his agency's original talking points -- while other intelligence officials were unable to say who changed the memo, according to a top lawmaker who was briefed.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., told Fox News that intelligence officials who testified in a closed-door hearing a day earlier, including Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, said they did not know who changed the talking points. He said they went out to multiple departments, including the State Department, National Security Council, Justice Department and White House.

So, subsequent to the CIA giving its assessment, the Al Qaida references were removed.

By whom?

Now, Rep. King is saying that the CIA may have subsequently approved them, but no one seems to know who removed the AQ reference. The DNI and current acting CIA Chief deny knowledge, as does Petraeus. The White House denies it.

Somebody did it. Who? Why?

Furthermore, Petraeus has testified that he knew, almost immediately that it was terrorism. The President knew it was terrorism.

So, why, days later, was Ambassador Rice making the rounds saying it was a demonstration that got out of hand? The President knew that wasn't true and yet he sent her out to spread false information (whether she knew it or not).

Why?

rickyp wrote:fate

No, it's not the same CIA. It changes all the time

The team changes but not the results.. Go Mets.

Now, that's childish.

fate

Why do you think it is "child(ish)" to be concerned when a President lies to the American people and directs his subordinates to give false information (whether Rice knew it or not, what she said was false)?

Hedging on releasing the suspected identities of the groups responsible for the Ben Ghazi attack pale in comparison to the abuse of intelligence, and the blaming of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war. I would have thought that experience would have humbled those who'd defended that course of action.... (A lot of republican critics of this incident)

Childish? The behaviour by the chief republican critics is transparent and at times ridiculous.
Witness Senator McCain complaining in a press conference that his committee is being inadequately briefed,. while at the exact same time a briefing on BenGhazi is being delivered to his group. A briefng he misses in order to make his complaints.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/john-m ... -on-libya/

That link was not informative.

I recall a previous briefing given to lawmakers. They complained they learned more in the NYT and WaPo than in the "classified briefing."

I'm not suggesting Rice had to identify the groups involved.

I'm saying she should not have been sent out there to mislead the American people, peddling a story about a video that the President already knew was false.

What's so hard to understand about that?

This is theatre and is of no real consequence. It only matters to Republicans in congress who have trouble looking at their roles as more than barking dogs.,

No consequence?

Four Americans are dead. Your statements are worse than childish; they are sophomoric.

We have a right to know what happened and why it happened. We have a right to know why more was not done before and during the attack.

More than anything else, we have the right to expect our government not to directly lie to us.

That others have lied or will lie does not excuse this lie.

The caravan will move on.

Maybe, unless there was a reason for the lie.

In any case, it is a stunning lack of thought on your part to suggest 4 dead Americans are shruggable.

Fate, the Republicans, indeed all of Congress, have hearings in which they can seek the full truth of what went on in BenGhazi..

Going after Rice is a side show. Going after Rice is of no consequence.
Going after the administration for hedging on naming names of terror groups ...is also largely meaningless. Unless something of significance comes out of the hearings to make that dodge important. And I doubt that.
In the meantime, all they do is look like idiots.
And if it isn't informative to understand that McCain, Ayotte and Graham would rather attend a media scrum to make noise about not being briefed properly, then actually attend an important briefing ...you've got your head up ...
Its obvious what they care about more .... maing cheap olitical point rather than contributing to better governance of the CIA and State departments.

rickyp wrote:Fate, the Republicans, indeed all of Congress, have hearings in which they can seek the full truth of what went on in BenGhazi..

Going after Rice is a side show. Going after Rice is of no consequence.
Going after the administration for hedging on naming names of terror groups ...is also largely meaningless. Unless something of significance comes out of the hearings to make that dodge important. And I doubt that.
In the meantime, all they do is look like idiots.
And if it isn't informative to understand that McCain, Ayotte and Graham would rather attend a media scrum to make noise about not being briefed properly, then actually attend an important briefing ...you've got your head up ...
Its obvious what they care about more .... maing cheap olitical point rather than contributing to better governance of the CIA and State departments.

Your link does not establish what you want it to establish.

I have not claimed about Rice what you keep defending.

What she said was demonstrably false. The President knew that.

The question is why. Answer that.

The POTUS was not hedging on naming terror groups. He was hedging on calling it organized terror.