Benghazi uncovered

[VaticanAssassin]

To sum it up;

- CIA knew almost immediately it was terrorism
- Rices talking points remove any mention of al-Qaeda from the CIA talking points
-Rices talking points added the video

So who gave her the new marching orders and why did Obama go in front of the UN an lie weeks later?

[julybaby04]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

To sum it up;

- CIA knew almost immediately it was terrorism
- Rices talking points remove any mention of al-Qaeda from the CIA talking points
-Rices talking points added the video

So who gave her the new marching orders and why did Obama go in front of the UN an lie weeks later?

hmmm....because he untrustworthy, lies to help himself, and wanted to cover anything bad up.....until after Nov 6.

[zipman]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

To sum it up;

- CIA knew almost immediately it was terrorism
- Rices talking points remove any mention of al-Qaeda from the CIA talking points
-Rices talking points added the video

So who gave her the new marching orders and why did Obama go in front of the UN an lie weeks later?

It seems there are two very different accounts of the testimony. The one you posted from FOX and the one below from CNN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated the group was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

[VaticanAssassin]

Originally Posted by zipman

It seems there are two very different accounts of the testimony. The one you posted from FOX and the one below from CNN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated the group was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

I am going from the Video interview of King as he walked out of the meeting...

[Adre]

[quote=zipman;42527644]It seems there are two very different accounts of the testimony. The one you posted from FOX and the one below from CNN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, it's pretty clear. Fox is fair and balanced and always objective. And CNN is a mouthpiece for liberals.

[richard_daily]

Where were all these people who are bringing up Benghazi when Bush was insisting that there were WMDs in Iraq?

[Anquan Jihad]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

So who gave her the new marching orders and why did Obama go in front of the UN an lie weeks later?

who cares?

why are you attacking a YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN?

RACIST!

WOMEN HATER!

[julybaby04]

Perhaps in not listening to Fox or CNN, the truth will come out.

....and to be honest, to think that 4 people would be killed (including the ambassador) because a movie said he was a womanizer? Seems like a pretty small reason to attack and kill.

[zipman]

Originally Posted by VaticanAssassin

I am going from the Video interview of King as he walked out of the meeting...

Which is the same source as both FOX and CNN.

I'm not saying which one is more accurate, just commenting on how different the spin is from each of them.

[zipman]

Originally Posted by julybaby04

Perhaps in not listening to Fox or CNN, the truth will come out.

....and to be honest, to think that 4 people would be killed (including the ambassador) because a movie said he was a womanizer? Seems like a pretty small reason to attack and kill.

Not to muslims. Just look at what happened when those cartoons were published. Or the Dutch film maker who was murdered.

[Trace_Element]

Originally Posted by zipman

It seems there are two very different accounts of the testimony. The one you posted from FOX and the one below from CNN.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated the group was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

There were 20 intelligence reports that indicated that anger about the film may be to blame, the official said.

The CIA eventually disproved those reports, but not before Petraeus' initial briefing to Congress the day after the attack when he discussed who might be behind the attack and what prompted it. During that briefing, he raised Ansar al Sharia's possible connection as well as outrage about the film, the official said.

Weren't Rice's "talking points" given on Sunday, 5 days after the event? AFTER it had been shown that it was Al Qaeda/Ansar al Sharia driven, and had nothing to do with supposed outrage over that idiot's Youtube® video?

CBS and the Washington Times are both reporting the same thing the OP said...it is not a FOX spin on things.

[julybaby04]

Originally Posted by zipman

Not to muslims. Just look at what happened when those cartoons were published. Or the Dutch film maker who was murdered.

Hmm, well maybe those people should be told to do what many tell Christians to do when things are published or said that offend them....just get over it or deal with it.

[zipman]

Originally Posted by Trace_Element

Weren't Rice's "talking points" given on Sunday, 5 days after the event? AFTER it had been shown that it was Al Qeada/Ansar al Sharia driven, and had nothing to do with supposed outrage over that idiot's Youtube® video?

CBS and the Washington Times are both reporting the same thing the OP said...it is not a FOX spin on things.

I didn't say it was a FOX spin on things. I merely pointed out the difference in what was being reported.

Nor was I defending Rice by any stretch of the imagination. I simply made an observation.

[garbage can]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Where were all these people who are bringing up Benghazi when Bush was insisting that there were WMDs in Iraq?

And supported by some of the top intelligence agencies in the world, along with Bill and Hillary and the US congress.

[zipman]

Originally Posted by julybaby04

Hmm, well maybe those people should be told to do what many tell Christians to do when things are published or said that offend them....just get over it or deal with it.

You said it was a small reason to kill which I do agree with. I was just pointing out that it is not perceived that way by muslims and their history of responding with violence to things like this is well documented.

[DooleyDarter]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Where were all these people who are bringing up Benghazi when Bush was insisting that there were WMDs in Iraq?

And don't forget, did the colonial really know for sure that there was tea on those british ships in the Boston harbor?

[Trace_Element]

Originally Posted by zipman

I didn't say it was a FOX spin on things. I merely pointed out the difference in what was being reported.

Nor was I defending Rice by any stretch of the imagination. I simply made an observation.

Not sure if it is funny or sad, but most of the online news reports have a paragraph or two on this morning's hearings, then veer off to the affair story and totally hijack their own headlines.
I hate all of the news outlets. Some call him a liberal, but I miss Mr. Cronkite.

[julybaby04]

Originally Posted by zipman

You said it was a small reason to kill which I do agree with. I was just pointing out that it is not perceived that way by muslims and their history of responding with violence to things like this is well documented.

Gotcha....and understood and I do agree with that. It is funny to me, though, that this group of people are the "peace-loving" people and they never mean any harm to anyone....

[julybaby04]

Originally Posted by Trace_Element

Not sure if it is funny or sad, but most of the online news reports have a paragraph or two on this morning's hearings, then veer off to the affair story and totally hijack their own headlines.
I hate all of the news outlets. Some call him a liberal, but I miss Mr. Cronkite.

I really agree with you. I think there was a time when journalists....ANY of them would have been like search dogs on a story like this, especially when people die.

Things have changed so much.....it is all about covering your own rear....or covering the rear of your "guy". The truth just doesnt seem to matter any longer.

[zipman]

Originally Posted by Trace_Element

Not sure if it is funny or sad, but most of the online news reports have a paragraph or two on this morning's hearings, then veer off to the affair story and totally hijack their own headlines.
I hate all of the news outlets. Some call him a liberal, but I miss Mr. Cronkite.

I think it's sad. When I was a kid, the NYTimes was the paper of record. They posted facts and had a very high journalistic standard. Now, they are nothing close to that.

[Trace_Element]

Originally Posted by julybaby04

I really agree with you. I think there was a time when journalists....ANY of them would have been like search dogs on a story like this, especially when people die.

Things have changed so much.....it is all about covering your own rear....or covering the rear of your "guy". The truth just doesnt seem to matter any longer.

Originally Posted by zipman

I think it's sad. When I was a kid, the NYTimes was the paper of record. They posted facts and had a very high journalistic standard. Now, they are nothing close to that.

The populace is now considered dumbed down to where we can't handle taking the facts and letting the chips fall where they may...pretty damned sad...sad that this is where it is, and sad that we, as a society as a whole, both left and right, have allowed it to get here...
I don't get into the political skirmishes on here...I just want the truth...I can figure out my own take on things...thus far in life, it rarely lines up with any news outlet...well, maybe The Onion...

[julybaby04]

Originally Posted by Trace_Element

The populace is now considered dumbed down to where we can't handle taking the facts and letting the chips fall where they may...pretty damned sad...sad that this is where it is, and sad that we, as a society as a whole, both left and right, have allowed it to get here...
I don't get into the political skirmishes on here...I just want the truth...I can figure out my own take on things...thus far in life, it rarely lines up with any news outlet...well, maybe The Onion...

I love watching the movie "All The President's Men". Even though I would have supported Nixon, I am sure, had I been old enough then, I just love that movie. The way those two went after the truth, they way they dug and found out information...and of course "deep throat". How nice it would be for ANY journalist to go after truth that way!!

[blobfish]

Originally Posted by richard_daily

Where were all these people who are bringing up Benghazi when Bush was insisting that there were WMDs in Iraq?

I don't know about the others, but I've been a critic of George W. Bush since at least 2005. I haven't liked a president since Thomas Jefferson.

[Trace_Element]

Originally Posted by julybaby04

I love watching the movie "All The President's Men". Even though I would have supported Nixon, I am sure, had I been old enough then, I just love that movie. The way those two went after the truth, they way they dug and found out information...and of course "deep throat". How nice it would be for ANY journalist to go after truth that way!!

I remember sitting in my grandparents' den watching the news that August, when Nixon resigned...I was 10, I think...the beginnings of my interest in politics...not that it is all that consuming...

[Anquan Jihad]

Originally Posted by BUSYBODY-II

who cares?

why are you attacking a YOUNG AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMAN?

RACIST!

WOMEN HATER!

Hey BUSYBODY-II, what a typically stupid thing to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


What?

You mean a noted COLORED DUMOH! House Member James Clyburn actually said that?????????????


Sorry BUSYBODY-II