Hey, McCain, The senate intelligence committee asked for talking points

[courseofhistory]

in answer to your inablitly to find the answers you are still so deeply concerned about!

Sen. John McCain


Big Issues Are Lost in Focus on Libya Talking Points

WASHINGTON — Three days after the lethal attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya, Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, asked intelligence agencies to write up some unclassified talking points on the episode. Reporters were besieging him and other legislators for comment, and he did not want to misstate facts or disclose classified information. More than 10 weeks later, the four pallid sentences that intelligence analysts cautiously delivered are the unlikely center of a quintessential Washington drama, in which a genuine tragedy has been fed into the meat grinder of election-year politics.

In the process, the most important questions about Benghazi, where Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, have largely gotten lost: Were requests for greater security for diplomats in Libya ignored? Even if Al Qaeda’s core in Pakistan has been decimated, what threat is posed by its affiliates and imitators in other countries where they have taken refuge? How can crucial diplomacy be conducted amid the dangerous chaos that has followed the toppling of dictators across the Arab world?

Instead, it is the parsing of the talking points — who wrote them, altered them, recited them on television or tried to explain them — that could decide the fate of a leading candidate for secretary of state, Susan E. Rice, currently the United Nations ambassador. On Wednesday, for the second time in two weeks, Ms. Rice received a hearty endorsement from President Obama in the face of a continuing battering on Capitol Hill.

It wasn't Susan Rice's fault or anyone else's.

Paraphrasing:

C.I.A. analysts drafted four sentences describing “demonstrations” in Benghazi that were “spontaneously inspired” by protests in Cairo against a crude video lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. (Later assessments concluded there were no demonstrations.) ...

However, during a subsequent review by several intelligence agencies, C.I.A. officials were concerned that such specific language might tip off the attackers, skew intelligence collection in Libya and interfere with the criminal investigation. So they replaced the names with the blanket term “extremists.”

Susan Rice accurately recited the talking points the intelligence agencies prepared.

So, if John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Sen. Ayotte, Sen. Collins and all the deeply troubled/disturbed republicans want to contact me to explain to them the answers to the questions they still have, feel free. I will give you links to sources and then you can find out what you so ineptly seem not to be capable of on your own! Morons! /sarcasm off

 

[whitehall]

The media had the story the next day. What the hell was secret? The administration told the same lie for a month. Obama didn't want to offend the muslem brotherhood that he helped install in Libya and he watched the battle for seven hours in real time and never lifted a finger to help Americans.

 

[courseofhistory]

The media had the story the next day. What the hell was secret? The administration told the same lie for a month. Obama didn't want to offend the muslem brotherhood that he helped install in Libya and he watched the battle for seven hours in real time and never lifted a finger to help Americans.

You're wrong and if the media had the story the same day (which isn't correct), then John McCain and his commrades in arms are stupider than I thought. It would be easy to have already found the answers to the questions they keep saying they are troubled about and want answers to!

If you read the info below, you will see that the information evolved over time regarding the video and so forth. The perpetrators told witnesses (truthfully or lying--who knows) the attack was because of the video and that is how the rumor got started. So, in some ways it wasn't unreasonable to think that might have been the main reason or at least the catalyst that pushed the terrorists over the edge.

What do eyewitnesses say about the events in Benghazi? Were they related to the insulting video, or is that a red herring? And was the assault planned for the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, or was it spontaneous?

According to reporting by David D. Kirkpatrick and Suliman Ali Zway of The New York Times, eyewitnesses have said there was no peaceful demonstration against the video outside the compound before the attack, though a crowd of Benghazi residents soon gathered, and some later looted the compound. But the attackers, recognized as members of a local militant group called Ansar al-Shariah, did tell bystanders that they were attacking the compound because they were angry about the video. They did not mention the Sept. 11 anniversary. Intelligence officials believe that planning for the attack probably began only a few hours before it took place.

LINK