Intel Community said they altered Rice Talking points

[emptystep]

The righties are pissed off at Obama for apologizing for freedom of speech, at Obama for not sending help, at Rice for lying. There is someone they forgot to be mad at. The fuckers who killed our four Americans in the first place.

What makes you think no one is pissed at them? Aren't you curious as why the administration choose to put out and promote a web video as the reason for the attack and continued to push that for several weeks rather than come out and admit what we all knew this was a terrorist attack?

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week. Romney was the next on the list of people to link the attack in Libya to the video referencing a statement put out earlier that day by someone in the Egyptian embassy, as statement which was not endorsed by the administration and soon disavowed by the administration. It would seem that members of the intel community put out the idea to place a 'blame it on a video induced riot' to cover the attack. That is until Wednesday after the Sunday appearance RIce on the morning circuit when Rep. Ros-Lenthinen and Rep. Canton put it in their speeches honoring the four Americans killed in Benghazi.

So this whole notion that the administration came up with the idea to blame the video for the attack in Benghazi is a construct by others.

 

[Stephanie]

And the Gate-ist take their rightful place along side the Birthers.....

We need an investigation into the Republicans who are continuously calling for a, um, er, well some kind of "Watergate" investigation into everything this president has been said to have done.

I'd call them Gate-ers but that might piss off Florida Gators fans.....

don't act like this didn't go on all during the Bush administration.

maybe you don't care this woman and administration didn't hesitate to first blame US, on a Amercian citizen and some film..but some people do

 

[wavingrl]

?

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week. Romney was the next on the list of people to link the attack in Libya to the video referencing a statement put out earlier that day by someone in the Egyptian embassy, as statement which was not endorsed by the administration and soon disavowed by the administration. It would seem that members of the intel community put out the idea to place a 'blame it on a video induced riot' to cover the attack. That is until Wednesday after the Sunday appearance RIce on the morning circuit when Rep. Ros-Lenthinen and Rep. Canton put it in their speeches honoring the four Americans killed in Benghazi.

So this whole notion that the administration came up with the idea to blame the video for the attack in Benghazi is a construct by others.

ek--The administration has more informed sources why would they rely on a reporter/journalist's opinions? Why?

And to go further back--after the regime in Libya was taken down and the outpost consulate established in Benghazi--what was the reason that the security needs weren't scrutinized carefully? That is what is inexcusable to me. Certainly they had top level fyi---military and other ---CIA/FBI--special ops---cough. It is not intended for 'public knowledge' but the 'spooks' are working 24/7. The needs were known---no excuse that I can determine for not providing appropriate security. shrug. Just a peon--what do I know?

 

[Pheonixops]

She read what she was given, Nut Case...She did not "Lie" as many in the GOP said. Get over it...YOU LOST!

LOL, No they can't, they are disgusting, fake, hypocrites, who feign outrage about this , so they can use it as a political football and try to score cheap "points".

Like so much of this story -story?- Obama watching the Benghazi attack in "real time" wasmade up-----made up by a blogger and reported as fact by Forbes but IMO we won't know all the details of the attack until the the perps are caught or killed and/or national security is not threatened by the declassification.


Some classified material takes a long time to be made public and some classified material, not so much. Take for example; Everett Dirksen agreeing with LBJ that Nixon was committing treason, caught on tape here> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeHeAWN-nos"]Dirksen LBJ[/ame] ----- that took about 40 years to see sunshine but-----but most (not all) of the classified documents from the 1980 Reagan stolen election, AKA Iran-Contra only took 20 years +++ etc.


But for someone that was part of the Phoenix Program, I digress.
.

Way too young to be part of that, but the rest of your points are excellent.

 

[Stephanie]

the bigger question should be, WHY did we have some Ambassador TO THE UN giving us any information on this to begin with?

we have a Sec. of State...

when did the UN start running our country?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe you delusional RW loons should read what the link said:

The talking points came from the CIA....NOT THE WHITE HOUSE. No one was told to lie. Rice was reading the Talking Points...HER FRIGIN JOB!

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

If you are saying 'an intelligence source' is blaming the Obama appointed DNI, sorry, not buying it.

No, I am saying that the story says a spokesman for the DNI is saying they are responsible.

 

[blackhawk]

The righties are pissed off at Obama for apologizing for freedom of speech, at Obama for not sending help, at Rice for lying. There is someone they forgot to be mad at. The fuckers who killed our four Americans in the first place.

What makes you think no one is pissed at them? Aren't you curious as why the administration choose to put out and promote a web video as the reason for the attack and continued to push that for several weeks rather than come out and admit what we all knew this was a terrorist attack?

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week. Romney was the next on the list of people to link the attack in Libya to the video referencing a statement put out earlier that day by someone in the Egyptian embassy, as statement which was not endorsed by the administration and soon disavowed by the administration. It would seem that members of the intel community put out the idea to place a 'blame it on a video induced riot' to cover the attack. That is until Wednesday after the Sunday appearance RIce on the morning circuit when Rep. Ros-Lenthinen and Rep. Canton put it in their speeches honoring the four Americans killed in Benghazi.

So this whole notion that the administration came up with the idea to blame the video for the attack in Benghazi is a construct by others.

I really think the White House has better sources about Libya than a CNN reporter in Egypt and Mitt Romney who has no sources in the intelligence community. The fact is the administration has changed it's story on who said what and when several times. I really have a hard time accepting that the intelligence community would try and use the blame the video cover without the ok from someone in the White House.

 

[emptystep]

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week. Romney was the next on the list of people to link the attack in Libya to the video referencing a statement put out earlier that day by someone in the Egyptian embassy, as statement which was not endorsed by the administration and soon disavowed by the administration. It would seem that members of the intel community put out the idea to place a 'blame it on a video induced riot' to cover the attack. That is until Wednesday after the Sunday appearance RIce on the morning circuit when Rep. Ros-Lenthinen and Rep. Canton put it in their speeches honoring the four Americans killed in Benghazi.

So this whole notion that the administration came up with the idea to blame the video for the attack in Benghazi is a construct by others.

ek--The administration has more informed sources why would they rely on a reporter/journalist's opinions? Why?

And to go further back--after the regime in Libya was taken down and the outpost consulate established in Benghazi--what was the reason that the security needs weren't scrutinized carefully? That is what is inexcusable to me. Certainly they had top level fyi---military and other ---CIA/FBI--special ops---cough. It is not intended for 'public knowledge' but the 'spooks' are working 24/7. The needs were known---no excuse that I can determine for not providing appropriate security. shrug. Just a peon--what do I know?

You're messin' up my quote grl. I didn't say the administration was going on the information from a journalist. I was simply pointing out that that was apparently the first word back to the states, over the open wire anyway. If you have the been reading the smaller circulation articles you would see that Benghazi wasn't much of a full time hang out so this whole 'security needs' crap is also just something being thrown out there to attack the administration.

Since you are having that problem with your cough you might enjoy reading this Benghazi Embassy Used for CIA Spying, Weapons Transfers | American Free Press

 

[emptystep]

What makes you think no one is pissed at them? Aren't you curious as why the administration choose to put out and promote a web video as the reason for the attack and continued to push that for several weeks rather than come out and admit what we all knew this was a terrorist attack?

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week. Romney was the next on the list of people to link the attack in Libya to the video referencing a statement put out earlier that day by someone in the Egyptian embassy, as statement which was not endorsed by the administration and soon disavowed by the administration. It would seem that members of the intel community put out the idea to place a 'blame it on a video induced riot' to cover the attack. That is until Wednesday after the Sunday appearance RIce on the morning circuit when Rep. Ros-Lenthinen and Rep. Canton put it in their speeches honoring the four Americans killed in Benghazi.

So this whole notion that the administration came up with the idea to blame the video for the attack in Benghazi is a construct by others.

I really think the White House has better sources about Libya than a CNN reporter in Egypt and Mitt Romney who has no sources in the intelligence community. The fact is the administration has changed it's story on who said what and when several times. I really have a hard time accepting that the intelligence community would try and use the blame the video cover without the ok from someone in the White House.

You and your grl friend need to learn to read better. Big Bird might be able fit you in sometime next week, right after he gets foot out of someone's ass.

What I said was that the White House got their talking points from the intel community. Also you say you intel community would take the lead from the White House how to cover a situation? Won't that naturally be the other way around?

My point about Lee and Romney was just the odd nature of the progression of the story that ended up being what Rice was saying five days later which is now the primary reason the righties are attacking the administration over this whole situation. Who came up the the whole idea of Mitt's statement anyway? Someone care to ask him about that? And to take a line from the article I linked to in my last post, "AFP inquired as to whether there was any possibility that Stevens had been deliberately set up."

 

[wavingrl]

ek--The administration has more informed sources why would they rely on a reporter/journalist's opinions? Why?

And to go further back--after the regime in Libya was taken down and the outpost consulate established in Benghazi--what was the reason that the security needs weren't scrutinized carefully? That is what is inexcusable to me. Certainly they had top level fyi---military and other ---CIA/FBI--special ops---cough. It is not intended for 'public knowledge' but the 'spooks' are working 24/7. The needs were known---no excuse that I can determine for not providing appropriate security. shrug. Just a peon--what do I know?

You're messin' up my quote grl. I didn't say the administration was going on the information from a journalist. I was simply pointing out that that was apparently the first word back to the states, over the open wire anyway. If you have the been reading the smaller circulation articles you would see that Benghazi wasn't much of a full time hang out so this whole 'security needs' crap is also just something being thrown out there to attack the administration.

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week.

Time to get out of this. Ambassador Rice appeared on 5 talk shows and stated 'that it was a spontaneous mob', etc.

The consensus at this point --from the DNI is that wasn't correct.

What else can be said? If you are 'employed' by an organization sometimes you just follow orders. Then if the orders change you go with that. 'Someoone Higher Up' was/is calling the shots that much is clear to me. 'Serve at the pleasure of the POTUS'. Chain of Command---the military believes in that as do others.

No cease fire in Israel or Palestine tonight. A teenager stabbed her 2 yr old sister to death in my city today. Plenty of things about which to be concerned.

There would have been nothing 'wrong' with saying---'We need to do further fact finding and discovery prior to making a definitive statement...'jmo.

If it is 'tolerated'/accepted that 4 US citizens died needlessly ---I am not surprised.

 

[emptystep]

You're messin' up my quote grl. I didn't say the administration was going on the information from a journalist. I was simply pointing out that that was apparently the first word back to the states, over the open wire anyway. If you have the been reading the smaller circulation articles you would see that Benghazi wasn't much of a full time hang out so this whole 'security needs' crap is also just something being thrown out there to attack the administration.

Ian Lee a CNN reporter in Egypt was probably the first to put out the idea that a mob angry at the video was behind the attack in Libya. Probably because he was in the middle of a mob mad at the video since the Egyptian televisions had been talking about the video for the last week.

Time to get out of this. Ambassador Rice appeared on 5 talk shows and stated 'that it was a spontaneous mob', etc.

The consensus at this point --from the DNI is that wasn't correct.

What else can be said? If you are 'employed' by an organization sometimes you just follow orders. Then if the orders change you go with that. 'Someoone Higher Up' was/is calling the shots that much is clear to me. 'Serve at the pleasure of the POTUS'. Chain of Command---the military believes in that as do others.

No cease fire in Israel or Palestine tonight. A teenager stabbed her 2 yr old sister to death in my city today. Plenty of things about which to be concerned.

There would have been nothing 'wrong' with saying---'We need to do further fact finding and discovery prior to making a definitive statement...'jmo.

If it is 'tolerated'/accepted that 4 US citizens died needlessly ---I am not surprised.

I'm not tolerating/accepting a damn thing. Neither should you or anyone else.

 

[Trajan]

Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Now, will the RW loons who see this is more than it is SHUT UP!

rice is out of the picture now. she repeated what she was told to, glad we got that settled. and?

 

[Trajan]

Maybe you should read the link, the talking points were "edited" by a flunky in the ONI.

If you are saying 'an intelligence source' is blaming the Obama appointed DNI, sorry, not buying it.

No, I am saying that the story says a spokesman for the DNI is saying they are responsible.

they also know, like they knew from day 1, when the reports were finalized who exactly as in the individual- made the change, these things are tracked and audited periodically. that person name has yet to be revealed, they will be sooner or later. The President appoints the DNI and he reports to and advises the C in C directly.

 

[Bigfoot]

If the President asked the question "Where did this come from?" There would have been a complete and accurate report on his desk by 3:00 PM that day. It's amazing how many Left Wing turds are buying this load of crapola.

 

[wavingrl]

Official: Changes to Benghazi talking points made by intel community – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs

Now, will the RW loons who see this is more than it is SHUT UP!

rice is out of the picture now. she repeated what she was told to, glad we got that settled. and?

???Did he choose someone else for SOS???

That bit of news hasn't reached me--if that is true.

 

[Jackson]

Once Petraeus's report came to the White House, the report was damning on the administration. Not only was protection not given to the Libyan Consulate, the policy was a mess. Help was not given when the men were in trouble. This is not what Obama needed close to an election.

John Clapper was an accomodating man. When asked if there were any alternative scenarios, he supplied one. It is as simple as that. The cover up was on. Nothing, but nothing was going to deter the president from his campaign messages and this too, would be swept under the rug.

He would be wrong.

 

[JimH52]

We may as well throw logistics and rational thinking out the window. The Agenda of those who claim that Rice or the White House lied is not to try to understand the facts or take steps that would prevent this from happening again. Their Agenda is to find a "smoking gun." Watergate and the last election is still haunting them. But they are and will be frustrated by facts that do not support their delusional claims.

Nuff Said...

 

[Stephanie]

We may as well throw logistics and rational thinking out the window. The Agenda of those who claim that Rice or the White House lied is not to try to understand the facts or take steps that would prevent this from happening again. Their Agenda is to find a "smoking gun." Watergate and the last election is still haunting them. But they are and will be frustrated by facts that do not support their delusional claims.

Nuff Said...

ah yes, that must be it, just couldn't be looking into if it was legitimate cover up that would be WORSE than Watergate..

we know they are ALL out to get the poor poor Dear Leader and their fweelings are still hurting from losing the election.

 

[wavingrl]

Once Petraeus's report came to the White House, the report was damning on the administration. Not only was protection not given to the Libyan Consulate, the policy was a mess. Help was not given when the men were in trouble. This is not what Obama needed close to an election.

John Clapper was an accomodating man. When asked if there were any alternative scenarios, he supplied one. It is as simple as that. The cover up was on. Nothing, but nothing was going to deter the president from his campaign messages and this too, would be swept under the rug.

He would be wrong.

This is what I concluded. A 'web', complete with a spider and quite a few flies.

As wrong as it can be.

I was thinking back ---Petraeus/Afghanistan, but it was McCrystal that was a 'rogue'--said some things to Rolling Stone and then resigned. Perhaps someone should contact him to glean more 'accurate' fyi?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Criticism of Rice has nothing to do with her position or actions.........

Its because she's black and a woman........

So say the neanderthals.....