@heckofajobbrownie said:

At some point you're going to have to face the fact that this is what she was told was the best available intelligence was at the time, and she's overstating the certainty of that assessment (she did a better job on Face the Nation), and to stop posting everyone you can find who said it was clearly a terrorist attack from the start. That's not how this works. You're working backwards from what we know now and substituting it for what we knew then.

Unless you're suggesting that we really should have taken the newly installed Libyan president's word for it and called it a day, it really doesn't matter what he thought. It matters what our intelligence agencies thought. When Susan Rice is getting ready to go on those shows she doesn't call Mohammed Magareif, does she? So posting his thoughts is not relevant here, or to this "scandal."

It may or may not have truly been the best information known, but the truth was out there for the taking and it was passed over or down right ignored. Magareif is probably the best friend we have in any Muslim country right now. Even he admits he is only in power because of the US, and he lived in the US for about 30 years. He tried to help us out by making it clear that it was an insurgent attack. According to him a protest never even happened. This is the first true friend we've had in the region in who knows how long (maybe besides turkey). We don't even have to pay him to pretend to like us, he actually does like us. And we ignore him....

One of the whistleblowers requested to be interviewed by the original review board. He was denied....

Hicks was in contact with the State Department, but it never occurred to them to ask him what happened.

I never claimed we use Libya's President's word and his word only in the investigation. But to ignore him and others is absurd. If the people who were actually in a position to know what happened were listened to, Rice wouldn't have had to spread the false claim and Clinton would not have had to say it doesn't make a difference.

And then on top of that, the State department slowly got all mention of a terrorist attack removed from the talking points. So it went from a possibility of the attack being because of a video based on an investigation that ignored people who were actually there, to the State Department deleting everything that didn't have the video as the root of the problem for Rice to tell the American people. And that sounds fine and dandy to you?

@calfoxwc said:

I have little use for Geraldo...but he says:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/10/geraldo-rivera-my-sources-tell-me-benghazi-was-about-running-missiles-to-syria-rebels/

The claim has no merits at this point in time, but would give an obvious motive as to why pretty much everyone involved (aside from the 3 whistleblowers) tried keeping the details as murky and low key as possible. And not that terrorists needed a specific reason to target Americans, but this would be an added incentive with a very specific target.

And thinking about it, if the terrorists put that much time, effort and resources into a different type of attack, I'm sure the could have done much, much more harm. So it would make sense that a motive other than mass casualties could have been in play for this attack.

And in pretty much every other situation like this, Obama was open about helping the rebels. He took a much more passive role with Syria, so maybe he didn't change his attitude about arming rebels, he just did so in secret.

Pure speculation and mere coincidences are probably just as likely, but I don't see major holes in the basis of the claim.

Libya's President Magarief said from the start that it was a planned attack. It's hard to trick terrorists into thinking we are clueless when he was publicly telling everyone what happen right after it happened.

Everything quoted at the bottom is directly from the link below.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite

"An anti-Islam film that sparked violent protests in many countries had "nothing to do with" a deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi earlier this month, Libya's president told NBC News."

"Magarief said there were no protesters at the site before the attack, which he noted came in two assaults, first with rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate, then with mortars at a safe house."

"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," he said, adding that the anti-Islam film had "nothing to do with this attack."

Of course this is what Rice had to say:

"The Obama administration initially maintained that the attacks were directly linked to protests over the film. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sept. 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said: “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video.”

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.

Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.

Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Once again, you're ignoring Petraeus in favor of the theory you prefer. You're also ignoring the other part of this story which mentions the reasons they were taken out - so as not to interfere with the investigation.

Until you produce someone like Petraeus who says there was no reason but politics to change these talking points you don't have anything. But that's going to be hard to do since Petraeus is already on record saying the reason these mentions were left out was to assist the investigation.

Other than that, you've got nothing more than the usual interagency squabbling and an embarrassed press secretary.

There was no reason to eliminate everything about it being a terrorist attack. If they really just wanted to act dumb for the terrorists who attacked, they would have said it could have been the protestors, it could have been a militant operation by terrorists, but ultimately that's all we have at this time. Instead they completely deleted everything about Al Queda and claimed that they knew the protestors were responsible. They didn't decline to go into basic details in order to protect the investigation. The went deep into details that weren't true. There's a huge difference.

Nuland's email stating that evidence should be hidden to protect the State Department seems to be pure politics. And Jay Carney admitted the 12 drafts were changed under direction of the State Department. The CIA was happy with their first draft. The State Department is when the push to start removing details began.

If they used the key words of "black" or "African" the IRS would have already publicly said they were fired. They would have had to.

Assuming they are at least in the process of being fired I can't complain at how the IRS is handling it. I just have to believe that if it was a race issue the pressure to clear the air immediately would force them to make their firings public.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

No, no, and no. Again, you're breezing over the explanations in favor of your theory. Why did they take the mentions of the groups out? We know this from Petraeus. It's also in this story. That's not "ignoring" so they can push a "narrative" - that's doing exactly what the intelligence agencies asked them to do. That's why they were taken out in the final draft, not so they could push a narrative.

Additionally, why did they go out and suggest that the attack was opportunistic and grew out of the video protests? Because that's also what they told them to say. It's right at the top of the draft.

You keep missing the obvious. When you get booked on these Sunday shows in a situation like this you go to the agencies and you ask them to put together their best available info. That's what happened here - the agencies got together and hammered out the talking points. Then she went on the Sunday shows and said them. That information turned out to be inaccurate.

What part of that is troubling for you?

What was to be gained be pushing the "narrative" you believe they pushed?

"When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story."

It was the State Department that ordered the all mentions of the terror group to be removed. The CIA wanted them there, hence why they wrote about it. You are confusing the CIA and the State Department.

The CIA wanted the best information put out on the Sunday shows, the State Department cut that part out. They didn't get together and work it out. The CIA wrote down everything they knew and the State Department deleted what didn't fit the video narrative.

"In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named Ansar al-Sharia."

The CIA left out nothing. The State Department left out anything they disputed it was from the video.

Dste Ace: Can I interest you in becoming an independent who favors libertarianism philosophy?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Now he has to point out it was an "organized" attack? I can't keep up with all of the made up rules you have for discussing terrorist attacks.

As for, "I'm criticizing them for telling Rice to tell everyone a video was to blame when they didn't know that for sure."

But that's not what happened. So stop doing that. They were giving their best sense of the information at the time. No one knew anything for sure. They hadn't completed the investigation yet. Nor did Rice definitively say how the attack occurred. You think they could have settled it by talking to the right people more. Maybe so. I still don't know which semantic detail has you so upset, or why you think it's such a big deal that we didn't know the exact details for another few days.

The initial CIA draft of the talking points specifically named the Al Queda group responsible and mentioned that the CIA warned of a possible attack. These correct talking points were rewritten 12 times and Rice read the final version that left out all mention of the CIA's warnings and the mention of the Al Queda group. So much for "best sense of information at the time". Like I said before, they ignored the Al Queda evidence in favor of pushing a Youtube video narrative.

It's the full story that was posted above. The first 3 paragraphs refute everything you have been saying.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

And if you are really having trouble figuring out why I distinguished a planned out attack from a spontaneous riot by saying it was "organized" then it's not that you are wearing liberal tinted glasses, it's that you don't understand how the English language works.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

And even if we grant you this semantic point - which i don't, but whatever - this matters why?

It's not semantics. You claimed he correctly pointed out is was an organized attack which he didn't. Unless "act of terror" isn't a general phrase but specifically refers to Muslim extremists. Which it doesn't.

No one knew "my guy" (the whistleblowers) claimed it was an attack because they weren't even asked about it. It's not a problem that they thought the protests could have been part of it after it first happened. It's a problem that people who were there and willing to tell what happened were ignored. Because they were ignored totally wrong info was stated as fact. You make it sound like I'm criticizing people for thinking the protests could have some how been a part of it. I'm not. I'm criticizing them for putting out the wrong info because witnesses were ignored.

I'm not criticizing anyone for not knowing everything day 1. I'm criticizing them for telling Rice to tell everyone a video was to blame when they didn't know that for sure. What I'm actually doing and what you are accusing me of are 2 different things.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

My God, man. I feel like I'm talking to a Truther about 9/11. "The fire would not have reached 900 degrees in that amount of time and therefore it would not have reached the burning point of steel."

You have lots particular things you wish to would have happened and precise wording that you wish had been used and the exact point in time you expect they should have been employed. This is your metric for scandal and I find it bizarre.

At this point it's clear that you read what you want to see and not what I typed. I have not called it a scandal, just a screw up. I have yet to say anyone purposely hid information or did anything with malice.

I just pointed out that Obama didn't call the attack a plot by terrorists. He said that "acts of terror" are bad. I don't care how he would have said it, just that he call it a plot by extremists and not a spontaneous riot because of a video. You thought the general phrase "act of terror" was a direct mention of Muslim extremists and I pointed out it's not. Killing 4 people is an "act of terror" if it was a planned by a group or spontaneously happened among random angry protestors.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Also, if your concerns really are what they say - making sure this doesn't happen again, holding people accountable, etc. - there's a pretty comprehensive report that was done by a team led by Admiral Mullen about the failures at the State Department before, during, and after the attack.

Wouldn't you prefer that to a Darrell Issa hearing? did that not suffice for you?

Was this the same team that couldn't ask questions to Hicks without state department lawyers present? Or that denied the request of one of the other whistleblowers to be interviewed? The reason the whistleblowers had to come forward was because the first investigation failed at getting the truth from the people who knew it best.

And I would say you dug yourself into the hole you are in when you tried passing the general phrase "act of terror" as a specific reference to a Muslim extremist organization.

Romney got caught up in the Rose Garden word play also. An "act of terror" could be committed by a spontaneous crowd. "Act of terror" in no way, shape or form means specifically Muslim extremists. Now of course they do commit acts of terror, but not all "acts of terror" are committed by them. Burning down the city of LA, looting and beating people is certainly an "act of terror". Although I recall that 1992 incident being committed by a spontaneous crowd, not a planned attack by an organized extremist group.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I've got to get to work here, but ...you're kidding on this, right? You can't be serious.

A statement about Benghazi given in the Rose Garden describing the attack and saying "these acts of terror will not stand" is not referring to the attack he's holding the press conference about in the first place?

Wow. I hadn't heard that attempted before. Even in here. And these guys are nuts.

PS - Are you a Ron Paul fan?

Not a Paul fan. that's why I'm an independent. Even Candy Crawly pointed out during the debate Obama used the phrase "act of terror", but not exactly saying it about Benghazi. Apparently you didn't watch that debate. Wearing a scary mask on Halloween and scaring a little kid is an "act of terror". Although "act of terror" has no legal definition that means Al Queda terrorists committed the terror. Any violent crime is an "act of terror". It was careful word play by Obama that didn't actually state Muslim terrorists did anything. An angry crowd of video watchers can commit an "act of terror" the same way an organized Muslim extremist group can.

Blaming it on the video when it was a terrorist attack isn't even the main problem. The fact that the rescue team in Tripoli was told to stand down is much more of an issue then Rice's BS.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I think you've answered my question, and it's that you're really invested in this being a conspiracy to mislead America, when it really was an interagency decision to not say anything definitive until all the facts were in, and to not tip off the groups who did it while we tracked them. You've completed ignored all of this evidence because it doesn't fit into your narrative, presumably so that you can keep your narrative.

You're perfectly free to be upset that certain people in the chain weren't asked or told certain things, but the fact that they weren't asked or told certain things does not strike me as a huge scandal, or even odd. Neither does the fact that they sent out Susan Rice to say basically, "We think this is how it happened, but we don't know yet" is a huge attempt to mislead and dammit, we need answers! That is the headscratcher, yes.

I find the whole episode entirely typical, much like any unfolding situation where the information isn't immediately clear. You're assuming that it was immediately clear because certain people said it was, while completely ignoring all of the other people who said that it wasn't clear. That's the only way you can say things like "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video." That's not what happened, and doesn't square with the reality the decision-makers were faced with at the time.

What's more, you still want to find out who in the CIA screwed up when what you're upset about is that not everyone immediately held the position you wanted them to hold, which is that it was a terrorist attack. The fact that some of the information they gathered suggested that it had something to do with the video, and that information was considered, is apparently what's bothering you. This is also a headscratcher.

Even more, you're upset that the intelligence community then made a judgment call about what to tell the public so they would maximize their chances of finding those responsible. Again, a headscratcher. This happens all the time.

In short, you're upset because everyone didn't immediately hold the opinion that this was a terrorist attack. Only in retroactive world does this make a lick of sense. You're trying to make this a willful attempt to mislead when it clearly isn't.

It's somewhat akin to demanding that the administration immediately call the Boston Marathon bombings Islamic terrorism the moment they discovered that the bombers were of Chechen origin. That ended up being the case, and that was some of the initial information they had, but they don't go out and say it definitively until they know, as there's a lot of information coming in at once.

I still have yet to say it was conspiracy or a scandal. I've portrayed it as a massive failure that has bot been fully investigated. Maybe your assuming the administration isn't being the transparent group they promised because they have something to hide. I'm not accusing that. I simply see the problems that caused this to happen. I believe the problems should be fixed. You don't see it as a big deal. What if those two SEALS stayed put like they were ordered, and 30 people (mostly if not all Americans) were still being held hostage by terrorists? Would you think it would be more important then? Because the one and only thing that kept those people from being killed or taken hostage were the 2 SEALS.

Rice didn't say we aren't sure but there are many possibilities. She flat out said it was the video. Obama didn't call it a terrorist attack for at least 2 full weeks. You try to make it seem like they claimed they weren't sure. They were dead sure it was a video. Your quotes that you try to buffer with the word "basically" are flat out wrong.

So because people who weren't there didn't know what happened and people who were there knew what happened, it's okay for the administration to have no idea what happened? The people who knew what happened weren't asked. Hicks wasn't asked by Clinton what happened. One of the other 2 guys offered to be interviewed and was declined. It wasn't a 50/50 split among people there who claimed it was a video. Everyone there knew it was an attack. I'm not ignoring people who said it wasn't clear. I'm saying they were in no position to fully know what happen. The people who were in position and did fully know were ignored. The people who provided evidence - in fact proof- it was a terrorist attack were ignored. Those who claimed with no real evidence at all that a video was responsible for a full scale mortar attack got their story picked up by the administration. Hence, "Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video."

Obama never called it an act of terror in the rose garden. Read the transcript. He said that acts of terror will not be tolerated, but it was in no way directed at Benghazi. And when he had more opportunities in the following days to directly call it terrorism in the following days, he didn't.

Again, maybe you will get it this time. The evidence it was because of a video never really made sense and didn't come from anyone who would actually know. The people who did actually know were ignored.

Again, I've said this probably 6 times, but I'm not saying there was an intentional action to mislead. I'm saying what came out was flat out wrong and the reasons why it was completely wrong clear. It should not have happened. The only way to fix a problem is to hold the people who are responsible fully responsible.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

So we know the answers to your question:

Who from the CIA told her that?

The entire agency did, when they made the decision to remove the names of the AQ-affiliated groups.

That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job.

Yes, they were.

No one it Libya thought it was from a video.

But that's not why they removed it. Additionally, at the time there were multiple intelligence reports that it did have something to do with the video. You're focusing on the specific people who thought it was 100% terrorism and no one else, leaving you with an incomplete picture.

Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks.

This doesn't strike me as odd. She's talking to him at 2:00 AM on the night of the attacks.

Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.

I really don't share your sense of immediacy, nor imagine that there's not going to be a fair amount of confusion when an embassy comes under attack on a night when there are anti-US protests all over the Muslim world.

You act as if the worst thing to happen here is that someone suggested the video had something to do with it, even while saying that we're still investigating, even while they had information that the video did have something to do with it. So, it's yet another place where most people see the usual amounts of after-action period confusion, with people try to nail down what happened, with lots of different agencies involved, which complicates the narrative. Whereas there's another side that says everyone should have accepted the version certain people had, and right away, and discount all the other information people had, and right away, and deliver that information to the public within days.

This is why the whole affair is such a head scratcher for most of us, until you factor in what everyone assumes is the real reason we're doing this all over again.

1) The CIA is made up of individuals with individual responsibilities. They are just a bunch of sheep who learn all their information from being herded together and set in front of a giant projector. Individuals wrote the report based on the work of other individuals. The whole thing was messed up and individuals can be to blame.

2) The fire department tells you, the police and the news crew that your house burned down because you didn't take care of faulty electrical wiring. Of course, the fire started on your back porch and accelerants were clearly used, making the electrical wiring claim completely illogical. (just like protestors used mortars). Witnesses who were their say there was a 100% chance it was arson, but the fire department doesn't bother to ask them that. You thing the fire department/ arson investigators did their job?

3) What was the point of calling him if she didn't find out valuable information? And why wouldn't she follow up to get more information? That would have been more reasonable then just making up that it was a video without knowing at all. Although I guess Hilary already answered those last two questions. She doesn't think it makes a difference.

4) The first time it was investigated Clinton just told us getting the truthful answers as to what really happened don't make a difference and that she can't remember anything else. The only reason the investigations continued is because 3 whistleblowers still haven't been asked by anyone about what happened that night. Unless these 3 witnesses took up their respective positions decades ago knowing they could help the GOP plot to bring down a Democrat President by making the administration look bad, I'm not really buying into your conspiracy that it's being drummed up to make Obama or Clinton look bad.

Hicks saying that Clinton never asked him about what happened is rather serious. His claim about the defense department lawyers is also very concerning.

Thompson says he was never given an answer as to why he calls for help were denied.

The 3rd whistleblower requested to be interviewed to help the investigation and his offer was declined.

I don't care what Republicans have to say, the fact that these statements came from the non-partisan whistleblowers is what matters. From no security increases at the building despite the fact that their were violent anti-US protest all over the Muslim world, to the denied request for reinforcements, to the disaster of an investigation, and so on. The administration sends out Rice to blame some video producer who put his work on Youtube over 3 months earlier, when that claim didn't even make sense at the time. With mounds of evidence making it clear it was an attack and nothing more than a guess that a video could have been involved, the administration had no business claiming it was a video. Any evidence of a terrorist attack was ignored in favor of blaming a video. And when they got caught telling something that wasn't true at all, they sent Clinton out to tell people it doesn't make a difference. And why this matters is a head scratcher to you?

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Wait a minute. You just said that Rice talking points didn't come from anyone in the intelligence community. Was that true or false? Was that not bad information? You seemed to have skipped over that. Maybe you didn't know that. Does it change your mind now that you do?

As for your claims.

1) It doesn't seem that way to me.

2) We already know the answer to these questions. And even if we didn't, what happens when you get to the bottom of who claimed it had something to with the video? Look above, friend. There's the CIA, telling Susan Rice to say that it had something to do with the video. And then she went out and basically said what they told her to say. That ended up not being accurate. This is what nobody gets. You act like we're discovering who killed Kennedy, when you're talking about analysts from CIA and State and others putting together a set of generic talking points while working off of incomplete information. What's the fucking issue here?

It happens every Sunday.

3) Yes, we do. the Pentagon has given their answer as to why the help wasn't provided. You just don't like the answer.

4) Yes, that's what Darrell Issa is after - the truth.

As for the "I just want justice" crap, justice is finding the people who killed four Americans. It's making sure the mistakes that were made are corrected. It's not the third go around of a show trial starring Darrell Issa produced by Fox News, designed to wound Hillary's eventual presidential campaign, and to give the base something to scream.

I said "intelligent community", not "intelligence". That wasn't a typo. I was saying no one belonging to the "intelligent community" would honestly believe it was a video. So that's a false. Of course it was bad info, if you think I skipped over than then you simply didn't read what I wrote.

1) I'm not even a republican. I'm an independent who general likes the libertarian philosophy. you can think what you want, but just stop trying to pin me to just trying to destroy Obama.

2) Who from the CIA told her that? That's what we need to know because they were obviously not doing there job. No one it Libya thought it was from a video. Furthermore, Clinton called Hicks, but didn't even bothering asking him who committed the attacks. Assuming it was an honest mistake to not think that was a good question to ask the man, it led to the false narrative of blaming a video being pushed for 2 weeks. These are problems that can't happen the first time. But they did and it needs to be fixed.

3) Really? I said Thompson claimed he wasn't told, and your best response is to blame me for not liking something about the pentagon. This has nothing to do with me being told, Mr. Thompson was never told and he still hasn't been.

4) Again, don't blame me, Cummings is a Democrat who wants to learn more from the whistleblowers.

Did you watch any of the whistleblowers testimony at all? Your responses to 3 and 4 make it hard to believe you will truthfully answer "yes".

Yes, icing on the cake. Accuse my desire for justice as 'crap". Those 2 SEALS gave their lives saving 30 people in one of the most heroic acts a US serviceman has ever done. Yes, what those 2 SEALS did are up there with the must heroic acts in US serviceman history. They were ordered to stand down, but just as a true hero would do, went to battle to save lives anyway. I'm not a Republican and neither of the 3 whistleblowers are there as Republicans. They are there as people who have served this great country for years just trying to get justice for the people who died serving the US.

We can't find those who did it when we are blaming a protestor when it was actually a terrorist. I support an investigation to uncover the full truth to fix the problems and Clinton screams is doesn't really matter.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Well, for one you're saying "Rice's talking points didn't come from anyone in an intelligent community." But they did. They were cleared through the interagency process, which involved intelligence agencies. Here, I can even show them to you:

The CIA's talking points read as follows:

• "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 diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
• This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
• The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens.

So were you right about that or wrong? Was that bad information?

Second of all, you're back to claiming that the scandal will be revealed when we reveal "The truth behind why the administration claimed it was because of Youtube."

Except 1) we already know how the talking points came together, and 2) there's no scandal even someone thought it was the YouTube video might have had something to do with it on that day, and said so.

Honestly, you think the reason this is of vital importance - again, since we already did this last year - is because Susan Rice said spontaneous demonstration, and we need to find out who told her to say YouTube because that would mean ....what again?

Really, I don't get it. I can't follow how this is some nefarious scheme to cover up, especially when the President had already called it an act of terror, and Rice was issuing some typically bland Sunday morning fair because they didn't have all the information yet. Could she have been more precise at that point? I suppose. What difference would it have made? Beats the fuck out of me.

This whole thing boggles the mind. I have no idea what you think you have here.

Yeah, everything you said can be torn to pieces just based on the whistleblowers hearings today.

1) I never claimed it is a cover up directly orchestrated by Obama or anything of the sort. I think you're assuming I just want to get Obama dragged into a mess. Nope. I just want the truth to get out.

2) Hicks said it was very clear it was a terrorist attack as it was happening. He was "stunned" when he heard Rice claim it was a video. Which raises the question, where did the "blame the video" claim came from. Nobody in Libya at the time blamed a video. The prime Minister of Libya, not Hicks, literally nobody. Everyone knew it was a planned attack. The obvious step is to get to the bottom of who claimed it was a video. Asking Rice who told her would do a lot in answering the question.

3) Thompson said that he requested for help, it was denied and he still doesn't know why.

4) You don't see why we need to find the full truth, but even Elijah Cummings says we need to continue the investigation.

I just want justice for the 4 dead Americans. There is no acceptable reason that Rice was told to claim a video how anything to do with it. We need to find out who told her that BS and why. We also need to know why help was denied. Sweeping problems under the rug may protect the image of important people, but it doesn't solve problems or serve justice for the murdered.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

Still not hearing anything new here, anything that makes this different from before.

I hear a lot of the same bad information, though.

What bad information?

And who said anything is supposed to different from before? The fact that the same questions have be being asked for 8 months and still the only people that are willing to help answer them are the whistle blowers is the issue at hand.

@heckofajobbrownie said:

I'll try again. Here are some examples:

Valerie Plame - that was a scandal because there was allegations of criminal wrongdoing, i.e. blowing the identity of a covert CIA agent for political purposes. That was the charge.

The U.S. Attorneys scandal alleged that federal prosecutors were dismissed mid-term for not pursuing political prosecutions. (And it was about voter fraud - they didn't have the evidence that it existed!) That was the charge - political interference in the judicial system.

What's the charge here? That we didn't have enough embassy security in Benghazi? We know that part. That Susan Rice was working off talking points given to her by the intelligence community? We know that part, too.

What's the scandal part? Anyone?

Not enough embassy security? The real question is why wasn't reinforcement allowed to come in and help? I usually get the excuse that they wouldn't got there in time. That doesn't even make sense. How did they know how long the attack would last? The attack could have went on for 12+ hours, but the excuse for why no one else was allowed to come help because they knew it would be too late. No they didn't, unless they can predict the future.

Rice's talking points didn't come from anyone in an intelligent community. Common sense says that there is no way a spontaneous crowd operated and launched a pin point accurate mortar attack for 7+ hours. It takes trained combatants to accurately and effectively hit targets with a mortar. Any change in air pressure, wind speed, even a big change in temperature completely changes the trajectory of a mortar and would require all of the calculation to be redone and adjustments to be made. I'm supposed to believe every day people who were enraged to the point of murder were able to carry out such a devastating mortar attack.

Not to mention the President of Libya and the 3 whistleblowers all confirmed that it was obviously a terrorist attack from the moment it started. I'm not sure anyone really believed protestors did this except maybe Chris Matthews.

The truth behind why the administration claimed it was because of Youtube needs to be revealed. Whether or not it was an intentional and complete cover-up doesn't matter at this point - as Clinton would say. Obama promised the most transparent administration in US history and we can't even get just for 4 murdered Americans.

The 49ers and the 9 career start qb went to the stadium of Matt Ryan, Julio Jones, Roddy White, Micheal Turner and Tony G. They left with a win.

The Ravens and Joe Flacco went to the stadium of Tom Brady and the higest scoring offense in the league (beat the 2nd highest scoring team by 76 total points). They left with a win. And if that's not good enough, last week they went to Denver and beat the 2nd highest scoring offense.