Condi Rice Blasts Obama on Weakness, Leadership

[Oldstyle]

Antiwar.com Blog? LOL...really shocking that THEY came to that conclusion, Bluesman! (eye-roll)

Why are you trying to portray yourself as a mental midget?

Do you not understand what quote marks mean? John Brennan was being quoted. If you want to claim the quotes are not accurate, it would only take a quick google search to find out.

The link clearly identifies the source of the quotes as PBS. The post you are questioning even listed a quote from the link that specifically said "...Brennan told PBS...".

Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS


...From 1999 to 2004 Brennan worked closely with George Tenet, first as his chief of staff, then as deputy executive director of the CIA. He also directed the National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005. Brennan discusses here how it became obvious the Pentagon wanted to have more of a role in intelligence; the pressures the CIA felt in the run-up to the Iraq war; how Tenet reacted to the news that the intelligencee assessment on WMD programs was wrong, and his thoughts on the CIA's future. This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006...



I.. think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...



Do you think you know better than "deputy executive director of the CIA" about what was fucking going on? This guy is talking in complete sentences. He cannot be discredited with idiotic right wing talking points.

Your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking, Blues. When someone states that "This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006..." what they are telling you is that they have NOT given you someone's complete statement...they have given you an EDITED version of that statement. An editor can take the parts of someone's interview that they think makes the point they are driving at and edit out those that don't. It's called cherry picking and it happens all the time in this time of media trying to make the news rather than simply report it.

The other thing that you haven't accounted for is the natural tendency of people to want to paint themselves in as favorable a light as possible. How many times have you seen politicians attempt to spin the narrative about something they were involved in that went wrong so that their reputations can be "refurbished". My guess is that John Brennen is engaged in doing just that. He was for enhanced interrogations when working for George W. Bush before he was against them when working for Barack Obama.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So I guess the only one from the worst foreign policy admiinistration in 40 years that hasn't now set himself or herself up as a second-guesser of Obama's policies is GW Bush.

 

[BlindBoo]

Now did you want to address the repeated lies told by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice about the You Tube video being the cause of the Benghazi attacks?

Quote the lies then.

 

[Oldstyle]

Now did you want to address the repeated lies told by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice about the You Tube video being the cause of the Benghazi attacks?

Quote the lies then.

That it was because of a You Tube video demonstration that escalated into violence? Have you not been paying attention, Boo? The Obama Administration went so far as to allow that film maker to be put in prison because it fit their narrative that HE was the bad guy that caused the death of Stevens and the three others.

 

[bluesman]

Antiwar.com Blog? LOL...really shocking that THEY came to that conclusion, Bluesman! (eye-roll)

Why are you trying to portray yourself as a mental midget?

Do you not understand what quote marks mean? John Brennan was being quoted. If you want to claim the quotes are not accurate, it would only take a quick google search to find out.

The link clearly identifies the source of the quotes as PBS. The post you are questioning even listed a quote from the link that specifically said "...Brennan told PBS...".

Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS


...From 1999 to 2004 Brennan worked closely with George Tenet, first as his chief of staff, then as deputy executive director of the CIA. He also directed the National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005. Brennan discusses here how it became obvious the Pentagon wanted to have more of a role in intelligence; the pressures the CIA felt in the run-up to the Iraq war; how Tenet reacted to the news that the intelligencee assessment on WMD programs was wrong, and his thoughts on the CIA's future. This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006...



I.. think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...



Do you think you know better than "deputy executive director of the CIA" about what was fucking going on? This guy is talking in complete sentences. He cannot be discredited with idiotic right wing talking points.

Your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking, Blues. When someone states that "This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006..." what they are telling you is that they have NOT given you someone's complete statement...they have given you an EDITED version of that statement. An editor can take the parts of someone's interview that they think makes the point they are driving at and edit out those that don't. It's called cherry picking and it happens all the time in this time of media trying to make the news rather than simply report it.

The other thing that you haven't accounted for is the natural tendency of people to want to paint themselves in as favorable a light as possible. How many times have you seen politicians attempt to spin the narrative about something they were involved in that went wrong so that their reputations can be "refurbished". My guess is that John Brennen is engaged in doing just that. He was for enhanced interrogations when working for George W. Bush before he was against them when working for Barack Obama.

So according to you, PBS used quote marks and claimed to be quoting him but instead had actually edited the verbiage? That is fucking ignorant.

What about Rumsfeld? Do you think his book was "edited"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
When the option of attacking Iraq in post-9/11 military action was raised first during a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush said Afghanistan would be the target. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s recollection in the memoir, “Known and Unknown,” to be published Tuesday, shows that even then Mr. Bush was focused as well on Iraq. A copy was obtained Wednesday by The New York Times.

 

[Oldstyle]

Why are you trying to portray yourself as a mental midget?

Do you not understand what quote marks mean? John Brennan was being quoted. If you want to claim the quotes are not accurate, it would only take a quick google search to find out.

The link clearly identifies the source of the quotes as PBS. The post you are questioning even listed a quote from the link that specifically said "...Brennan told PBS...".

Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS


...From 1999 to 2004 Brennan worked closely with George Tenet, first as his chief of staff, then as deputy executive director of the CIA. He also directed the National Counterterrorism Center from 2004 to 2005. Brennan discusses here how it became obvious the Pentagon wanted to have more of a role in intelligence; the pressures the CIA felt in the run-up to the Iraq war; how Tenet reacted to the news that the intelligencee assessment on WMD programs was wrong, and his thoughts on the CIA's future. This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006...



I.. think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...



Do you think you know better than "deputy executive director of the CIA" about what was fucking going on? This guy is talking in complete sentences. He cannot be discredited with idiotic right wing talking points.

Your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking, Blues. When someone states that "This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006..." what they are telling you is that they have NOT given you someone's complete statement...they have given you an EDITED version of that statement. An editor can take the parts of someone's interview that they think makes the point they are driving at and edit out those that don't. It's called cherry picking and it happens all the time in this time of media trying to make the news rather than simply report it.

The other thing that you haven't accounted for is the natural tendency of people to want to paint themselves in as favorable a light as possible. How many times have you seen politicians attempt to spin the narrative about something they were involved in that went wrong so that their reputations can be "refurbished". My guess is that John Brennen is engaged in doing just that. He was for enhanced interrogations when working for George W. Bush before he was against them when working for Barack Obama.

So according to you, PBS used quote marks and claimed to be quoting him but instead had actually edited the verbiage? That is fucking ignorant.

What about Rumsfeld? Do you think his book was "edited"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
When the option of attacking Iraq in post-9/11 military action was raised first during a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush said Afghanistan would be the target. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s recollection in the memoir, “Known and Unknown,” to be published Tuesday, shows that even then Mr. Bush was focused as well on Iraq. A copy was obtained Wednesday by The New York Times.

Do you really not understand what "edited" means? What is denoted when something begins or ends with ... ? It means you aren't getting whatever was said or written in it's entirety.

 

[BlindBoo]

Now did you want to address the repeated lies told by Obama, Clinton, Carney and Rice about the You Tube video being the cause of the Benghazi attacks?

Quote the lies then.

That it was because of a You Tube video demonstration that escalated into violence? Have you not been paying attention, Boo? The Obama Administration went so far as to allow that film maker to be put in prison because it fit their narrative that HE was the bad guy that caused the death of Stevens and the three others.

That's not a quote. In fact, I'd like the full statement (at least a link) not just the typical snippet you guys like to use that includes words like video, demonstration and violence.

 

[Oldstyle]

Quote the lies then.

That it was because of a You Tube video demonstration that escalated into violence? Have you not been paying attention, Boo? The Obama Administration went so far as to allow that film maker to be put in prison because it fit their narrative that HE was the bad guy that caused the death of Stevens and the three others.

That's not a quote. In fact, I'd like the full statement (at least a link) not just the typical snippet you guys like to use that includes words like video, demonstration and violence.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a statement on Sept. 11, 2012. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

That was Clinton the day after the attacks...the day after she'd been briefed by Greg Hicks that it was a terrorist attack carried out by the Ansar al-Sharia group. It's an obvious attempt on her part to paint what happened as something that occurred because of the You Tube video even though Clinton and the White House knew from both Hicks and the CIA's initial reports that it was Ansar al-Sharia and not a protest that escalated.

 

[bluesman]

Your reading comprehension skills are a bit lacking, Blues. When someone states that "This is an edited transcript of an interview conducted on March 8, 2006..." what they are telling you is that they have NOT given you someone's complete statement...they have given you an EDITED version of that statement. An editor can take the parts of someone's interview that they think makes the point they are driving at and edit out those that don't. It's called cherry picking and it happens all the time in this time of media trying to make the news rather than simply report it.

The other thing that you haven't accounted for is the natural tendency of people to want to paint themselves in as favorable a light as possible. How many times have you seen politicians attempt to spin the narrative about something they were involved in that went wrong so that their reputations can be "refurbished". My guess is that John Brennen is engaged in doing just that. He was for enhanced interrogations when working for George W. Bush before he was against them when working for Barack Obama.

So according to you, PBS used quote marks and claimed to be quoting him but instead had actually edited the verbiage? That is fucking ignorant.

What about Rumsfeld? Do you think his book was "edited"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
When the option of attacking Iraq in post-9/11 military action was raised first during a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush said Afghanistan would be the target. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s recollection in the memoir, “Known and Unknown,” to be published Tuesday, shows that even then Mr. Bush was focused as well on Iraq. A copy was obtained Wednesday by The New York Times.

Do you really not understand what "edited" means? What is denoted when something begins or ends with ... ? It means you aren't getting whatever was said or written in it's entirety.

When I post, I am giving the benefit of the doubt that the reader is not a pure idiot and doesn't need simple shit explained. "Frontline" is a TV program presented by PBS and the episodes are 90 minutes long. Of course they didn't transcribe the whole program. If you want to claim that the quotes are not accurate, then it is up to you to show that. The basis of your bullshit seems to be that PBS is admitting to changing the context of the statements somehow. It is just too stupid to go back and forth about.



Here is an example that shows nothing was taken out of context:


Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

Question:

By the middle of 2002, heading into the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] in the fall, it's been reported that Tenet is feeling pressure ... to do things about Iraq, pressure to write things about weapons of mass destruction. Did you ever have a conversation with him about it, or are you aware of that kind of pressure?


Brennan's Answer:

I think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...

It was an intense period. We still were heavily engaged on trying to counter Al Qaeda, the war on terrorism. And so there were a lot of things on George's plate. And he was working, you know, from sun up to sun down and past that, seven days a week. ...


Also, Are you claiming that Rumsfeld lied in his book?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”

 

[Oldstyle]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6OzShia0bQ]10/10/12 Libya timeline showing lie after lie by Obama administration officials - YouTube[/ame]

That report by FOX gives a good overview of how the "video" narrative was put out by the Obama Administration for weeks despite their knowing that night that it was not a mob that got out of control but was in fact a planned attack by Ansar al-Sharia.

 

[Oldstyle]

So according to you, PBS used quote marks and claimed to be quoting him but instead had actually edited the verbiage? That is fucking ignorant.

What about Rumsfeld? Do you think his book was "edited"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”
When the option of attacking Iraq in post-9/11 military action was raised first during a Camp David meeting on Sept. 15, 2001, Mr. Bush said Afghanistan would be the target. But Mr. Rumsfeld’s recollection in the memoir, “Known and Unknown,” to be published Tuesday, shows that even then Mr. Bush was focused as well on Iraq. A copy was obtained Wednesday by The New York Times.

Do you really not understand what "edited" means? What is denoted when something begins or ends with ... ? It means you aren't getting whatever was said or written in it's entirety.

When I post, I am giving the benefit of the doubt that the reader is not a pure idiot and doesn't need simple shit explained. "Frontline" is a TV program presented by PBS and the episodes are 90 minutes long. Of course they didn't transcribe the whole program. If you want to claim that the quotes are not accurate, then it is up to you to show that. The basis of your bullshit seems to be that PBS is admitting to changing the context of the statements somehow. It is just too stupid to go back and forth about.



Here is an example that shows nothing was taken out of context:


Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

Question:

By the middle of 2002, heading into the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] in the fall, it's been reported that Tenet is feeling pressure ... to do things about Iraq, pressure to write things about weapons of mass destruction. Did you ever have a conversation with him about it, or are you aware of that kind of pressure?


Brennan's Answer:

I think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...

It was an intense period. We still were heavily engaged on trying to counter Al Qaeda, the war on terrorism. And so there were a lot of things on George's plate. And he was working, you know, from sun up to sun down and past that, seven days a week. ...


Also, Are you claiming that Rumsfeld lied in his book?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”

Dude, I'm not the one that claimed all of Brennan's testimony was provided, when in fact only parts of his testimony was provided. You still don't seem to grasp what ... means at the beginning or end of something.

 

[bluesman]

Do you really not understand what "edited" means? What is denoted when something begins or ends with ... ? It means you aren't getting whatever was said or written in it's entirety.

When I post, I am giving the benefit of the doubt that the reader is not a pure idiot and doesn't need simple shit explained. "Frontline" is a TV program presented by PBS and the episodes are 90 minutes long. Of course they didn't transcribe the whole program. If you want to claim that the quotes are not accurate, then it is up to you to show that. The basis of your bullshit seems to be that PBS is admitting to changing the context of the statements somehow. It is just too stupid to go back and forth about.



Here is an example that shows nothing was taken out of context:


Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

Question:

By the middle of 2002, heading into the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] in the fall, it's been reported that Tenet is feeling pressure ... to do things about Iraq, pressure to write things about weapons of mass destruction. Did you ever have a conversation with him about it, or are you aware of that kind of pressure?


Brennan's Answer:

I think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...

It was an intense period. We still were heavily engaged on trying to counter Al Qaeda, the war on terrorism. And so there were a lot of things on George's plate. And he was working, you know, from sun up to sun down and past that, seven days a week. ...


Also, Are you claiming that Rumsfeld lied in his book?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”

Dude, I'm not the one that claimed all of Brennan's testimony was provided, when in fact only parts of his testimony was provided. You still don't seem to grasp what ... means at the beginning or end of something.

"Testimony"? This was a fucking interview, not courtroom or deposition "testimony". They asked him questions and he answered. If you hear the question and the answer, then there is no requirement to see the whole 90 minute program to understand how he answered a specific question.

 

[Oldstyle]

When I post, I am giving the benefit of the doubt that the reader is not a pure idiot and doesn't need simple shit explained. "Frontline" is a TV program presented by PBS and the episodes are 90 minutes long. Of course they didn't transcribe the whole program. If you want to claim that the quotes are not accurate, then it is up to you to show that. The basis of your bullshit seems to be that PBS is admitting to changing the context of the statements somehow. It is just too stupid to go back and forth about.



Here is an example that shows nothing was taken out of context:


Interviews - John Brennan | The Dark Side | FRONTLINE | PBS

Question:

By the middle of 2002, heading into the NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] in the fall, it's been reported that Tenet is feeling pressure ... to do things about Iraq, pressure to write things about weapons of mass destruction. Did you ever have a conversation with him about it, or are you aware of that kind of pressure?


Brennan's Answer:

I think there was a feeling within the agency that intelligence was increasingly becoming the meat in the sandwich on this one; that we were being asked to do things and to make sure that that justification was out there. Responding to the requests from the Hill for that National Intelligence Estimate in a very short period of time and compressed schedule to do something as major and as significant as that, there was concern that intelligence was being pushed forward as the justification for war. ...

It was an intense period. We still were heavily engaged on trying to counter Al Qaeda, the war on terrorism. And so there were a lot of things on George's plate. And he was working, you know, from sun up to sun down and past that, seven days a week. ...


Also, Are you claiming that Rumsfeld lied in his book?


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/us/politics/03rumsfeld.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

“He asked that I take a look at the shape of our military plans on Iraq,” Mr. Rumsfeld writes.
“Two weeks after the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, those of us in the Department of Defense were fully occupied,” Mr. Rumsfeld recalls. But the president insisted on new military plans for Iraq, Mr. Rumsfeld writes. “He wanted the options to be ‘creative.’ ”

Dude, I'm not the one that claimed all of Brennan's testimony was provided, when in fact only parts of his testimony was provided. You still don't seem to grasp what ... means at the beginning or end of something.

"Testimony"? This was a fucking interview, not courtroom or deposition "testimony". They asked him questions and he answered. If you hear the question and the answer, then there is no requirement to see the whole 90 minute program to understand how he answered a specific question.

Sigh. They did ask him questions and he did answer those questions. Then someone ELSE took his answers and edited them, taking what they thought made the point of their article and excluding the rest. My POINT, which you seem unable to grasp is that unless you DO see the entirety of Brennan's interview it's impossible to gauge whether or not something he said was taken out of context.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Condi Rice Blasts Obama on Weakness, Leadership

And he is the one thing keeping her out of prison at the Hague.

 

[BlindBoo]

That it was because of a You Tube video demonstration that escalated into violence? Have you not been paying attention, Boo? The Obama Administration went so far as to allow that film maker to be put in prison because it fit their narrative that HE was the bad guy that caused the death of Stevens and the three others.

That's not a quote. In fact, I'd like the full statement (at least a link) not just the typical snippet you guys like to use that includes words like video, demonstration and violence.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a statement on Sept. 11, 2012. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

That was Clinton the day after the attacks...the day after she'd been briefed by Greg Hicks that it was a terrorist attack carried out by the Ansar al-Sharia group. It's an obvious attempt on her part to paint what happened as something that occurred because of the You Tube video even though Clinton and the White House knew from both Hicks and the CIA's initial reports that it was Ansar al-Sharia and not a protest that escalated.

Sorry, that was not a lie. At the time, on Sept 12, riots were breaking out all over the Middle East over that video. So you know that Mullahs all over the middle east were calling for protest against the Great Satan, right? Saying "Some have sought..." is not saying "the You Tube video caused the Benghazi attacks"

Where and when do they specifically say without any qualifiers, that they had proof that the video caused the Benghazi attack?

 

[bluesman]

Dude, I'm not the one that claimed all of Brennan's testimony was provided, when in fact only parts of his testimony was provided. You still don't seem to grasp what ... means at the beginning or end of something.

"Testimony"? This was a fucking interview, not courtroom or deposition "testimony". They asked him questions and he answered. If you hear the question and the answer, then there is no requirement to see the whole 90 minute program to understand how he answered a specific question.

Sigh. They did ask him questions and he did answer those questions. Then someone ELSE took his answers and edited them, taking what they thought made the point of their article and excluding the rest. My POINT, which you seem unable to grasp is that unless you DO see the entirety of Brennan's interview it's impossible to gauge whether or not something he said was taken out of context.

That is too stupid. If you think PBS doctored the transcript then you should be able to find a reference to it on the internet. The show was publicly aired on PBS and DVDs are available. Besides, everybody knows that the George W Bush administration was pushing for the war. I provided quote from Rumsfeld's book but you skipped over it. It seems like you general point is to just be dumb about it so all I can say is "Mission Accomplished".

 

[Oldstyle]

That's not a quote. In fact, I'd like the full statement (at least a link) not just the typical snippet you guys like to use that includes words like video, demonstration and violence.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” Clinton said in a statement on Sept. 11, 2012. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

That was Clinton the day after the attacks...the day after she'd been briefed by Greg Hicks that it was a terrorist attack carried out by the Ansar al-Sharia group. It's an obvious attempt on her part to paint what happened as something that occurred because of the You Tube video even though Clinton and the White House knew from both Hicks and the CIA's initial reports that it was Ansar al-Sharia and not a protest that escalated.

Sorry, that was not a lie. At the time, on Sept 12, riots were breaking out all over the Middle East over that video. So you know that Mullahs all over the middle east were calling for protest against the Great Satan, right? Saying "Some have sought..." is not saying "the You Tube video caused the Benghazi attacks"

Where and when do they specifically say without any qualifiers, that they had proof that the video caused the Benghazi attack?

Did you not watch the Fox News timeline on their comments about Benghazi? It's quite obvious that although they knew that night that the attack was not because of a protest that got out of hand they deliberately tried to portray what happened as being a result of the You Tube video. A narrative that they were still pushing weeks after the attack.