does he get paid for every interview?
Did Hillary tell these parents that it was the video airing, after the CIA released their official report on Sept. 24th?
If it was beforehand, when it was still 'foggy' then why make an issue out of it but for solely political reasons?
If it was 'foggy' they shouldn't have laid blame where they were unsure it actually belonged.
I don't buy this fog story at all. I don't see how anyone that actually looked at the timeline, e-mails and other available information could either. To me, it's nothing but an excellent BS story, in that is not disprovable. Plausible deniability and all that, except for the fact that there is a record on all of this if people choose to read it. I'm not going to post all of the evidence contradicting their 'fog' story, but there is plenty here:
Benghazi Timeline
"The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points."
Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act."
To me this was a total BS story, made up from whole cloth to, in their own words make it seem that "these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy"
they lied. no doubt in my mind about it. Grabbed that feeble straw of this video, knew they were lying, trotted Rice out to lie to people and rode that pony as long as it took for the short attention span of the American public to get into 'yesterday's news' territory.
Then Rice got her reward for being a good soldier and was appointed as National Security Advisor, which would be belly-laugh territory if it wasn't an actually important post. They should have appointed her ambassador to Libya instead......
I don't care if they initially used the video, there was unrest and riots in the region due to the video elsewhere, they had intelligence saying the unrest was spreading to other middle eastern regions and cities, the State dept was concerned with it spreading and found an opportunity to speak out against the violence and try to quell the swelling anger over it in the region...
Without having a definitive answer on whether the video some how inspired the attack by the terrorists from the Intelligence community, which did not come until about 2 weeks later, then using the video, which the CIA said was a part of this attack was okay to do if they felt it would serve our Nation best at the time.
And even then, after the two weeks it took for the CIA to come out with their report on the attack, and to this very day, Our Intelligence community has NOT taken the video off the table as being a part of this attack.
They, the intelligence agencies, the State Department and Defense Dept and Military commanders have their reasons for handling things the way they do in foreign affairs, and I am not privileged to know those security reasons.
Now if they continue to hound that it was simply a video outburst, and nothing else, AFTER the CIA released their analysis of the situation, then I'd be concerned.
First, thanks for not shrieking at me for disagreeing.
Anyhoo, I can't agree with simply trusting them. Not because I don't think there are times when the government needs to do things on the fly for the good of the country, but because in this case it does not appear that this serves anyone's interests but those of the administration in this case. That is, of course, arguable
If you read through the link you will see Hillary herself blaming an al qaeda like group immediately after the attack.
“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”
then the talking points issued by the CIA are massaged, yes? I posted this before, precisely because the CIA's original position WAS altered, but here it is again.
The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.
Here are some other tidbits:
"We call attention in particular to these key facts:
- There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
- Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
- Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
- Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24."
As to intelligence agencies never taking the video off the table as a possible contributor, I'm not sure what that really means. They'd have to prove a negative to do so. They can't prove anything did NOT contribute to something.
Sorry, I don't buy it, not for a second. Not their story and not this fog of war stuff, which I think is nonsense.
Evidence provided by Politifact is there for anyone that chooses to read it. To me it would seem to indicate that the administration, including Clinton, knew what happened but decided to play CYA in an election year by trying to deflect blame away from something that could be construed as a "broader failure of policy"- their own words yet again:
"Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.”
thank you as well!
Let me address the Hillary email to her daughter right after the attack.
(I watched the Benghazi hearing with her and have read the previous Benghazi reports lead by Republicans Committees.)
The CIA and other intelligence reports had supplied the administration with information that a terrorist group was taking credit for the attack, of which the CIA claims they had no warning or previous Knowledge that something like this would happen.
The CIA AT THE SAME TIME also supplied them with information that some of their intelligence sources are saying it was an attack inspired by the video and this video resentment was getting ready to explode across the middle east.
that night when she spoke to Chelsea, a terrorist group had taken credit for it....thus what she mentioned to Chelsea.
The following morning, CIA/NSA intelligence told the administration that the group that initially tweeted that they were responsible came out and RETRACTED/ RENEGED their initial claim....so as she had said, the intelligence was fluid, and changing by the minute....
Also just two weeks after the incident, the Intelligence community came out with their analysis and said it was a specific terrorist group, this was in the news everywhere and it was still 6 weeks minimum until the election. It would have made no difference to the American people Knowing on the 12th of September or knowing on the 24th of September....they had plenty of time to change their minds about voting for Obama.
and I might add that Obama NEVER SAID AlQaeda was completely eliminated as the right wing is trying to mix in as a "talking point" with all of this and give this as a reason for not claiming it was terrorists.... and Romney would have won if the people knew this garbage....yahdahdahdahdah..... Obama said we were making good progress against Alqaeda, NOT that they were gone forever and a day....
And, I might add that Alqaeda has basically disappeared since he mentioned our progress and now the terrorists we are against are ISIL.
