Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

That's odd. There was no mob. There was no protest.

Makes one wonder why it was reported, doesn't it.

The original statement she made was in response to information provided by the intelligence community. Likely the same folks who claimed that Saddam was manufacturing WMDs.

"In answering, I relied solely and squarely on the information the intelligence community provided to me and other senior U.S. officials, including through the daily intelligence briefings that present the latest reporting and analysis to policy makers. This information represented the intelligence community's best, current assessment as of the date of my television appearances, and I went out of my way to ensure it was consistent with the information that was being given to Congress."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ence_community

Later, the State Department confirmed there was no initial protest leading up to the attack.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...hazi_consulate

Originally Posted by thunder1

Makes one wonder why it was reported, doesn't it.

The original statement she made was in response to information provided by the intelligence community. Likely the same folks who claimed that Saddam was manufacturing WMDs.



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ence_community

Later, the State Department confirmed there was no initial protest leading up to the attack.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...hazi_consulate

Really? Because the state department said there was no protest and they knew from the very beginning there was no protest. They also said they never thought the video had anything to do with it.

It has come out that the intelligence community and other sources never claimed there was a protest and never said this had anything to do with a video. The administration knew within hours what the situation was but for some unknown reason they decided to lie and create a whole story around this.

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

Really? Because the state department said there was no protest and they knew from the very beginning there was no protest. They also said they never thought the video had anything to do with it.

It has come out that the intelligence community and other sources never claimed there was a protest and never said this had anything to do with a video. The administration knew within hours what the situation was but for some unknown reason they decided to lie and create a whole story around this.

Can you link to any official statements to back up what you've said? All I've heard is that Petraeus wasn't involved in the statements Rice made. That's certainly not what you're trying to portray here. You do realize that the CIA director isn't the only person in the whole intelligence community, right?

After the hearing, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Maryland, blamed confusion over two seemingly different versions of the consulate violence -- was it caused by a protest or by terrorists?

He said there were essentially two threads of violence: one caused by the protest, which was chaotic, and a second that was orchestrated by terrorists, which was highly coordinated.

There were "two different types of situations at play," Ruppersberger said, explaining that in the hours and days after the attack, it was naturally difficult to clearly discern what happened.

Intelligence evolves, he said, and new information comes out when agents obtain it. He downplayed the idea that there was something untoward going on.

The former CIA chief has said there was a stream of intelligence from multiple sources, including video at the scene, that indicated the group was behind the attack, according to an official with knowledge of the situation.

Meanwhile, separate intelligence indicated the violence at the consulate was inspired by protests in Egypt over an ostensibly anti-Islam film that was privately produced in the United States. The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," portrayed the Prophet Mohammed as a womanizing buffoon.

Petraeus testified that he developed unclassified talking points in the days after the attack but he had no direct involvement in developing the ones used by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, King said.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...ngs/index.html

Originally Posted by thunder1

Can you link to any official statements to back up what you've said?

Don't hold your breath waiting.

Originally Posted by thunder1

Can you link to any official statements to back up what you've said? All I've heard is that Petraeus wasn't involved in the statements Rice made. That's certainly not what you're trying to portray here. You do realize that the CIA director isn't the only person in the whole intelligence community, right?

Here is the story of what happened. Note, no talk of any protest. An hour before the attack The ambassador walked a Turkish delegate to the gate. Not something you do when there is a protest taking place.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-rev...062900114.html

Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.

The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.

In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.

When asked about the video starting a protest that led to the attack state department officials said:

"That was not our conclusion," the State Department official said. "We don't necessarily have a conclusion [about that]."

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...hazi_consulate

According to Petraeus he said the CIA talking points were edited not to include terrorism. He also

http://mrctv.org/videos/king-petraeu...down-terrorism

According to Patraeus he knew "almost immeidately" after the attack that it was tied to Al-Queada.

"When he looks at what Susan Rice said," CNN reports, "here is what Petraeus's take is, according to my source. Petraeus developed some talking points laying it all out. those talking points as always were approved by the intelligence community. But then he sees Susan Rice make her statements and he sees input from other areas of the administration. Petraeus -- it is believed -- will tell the committee he is not certain where Susan Rice got all of her information."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...zi_663458.html

So lets re-cap. There was no protest or any proof of a protest from the people on the ground. The State department never felt this had anything to do with a video. The talking points were editted to play down terrorism. Petraeus doesn't know where Susan got her information. It's clear the video had nothing to do with this and the key plays knew "almost immediately" it was a terrorist attack.

Originally Posted by CrazyLittle

Don't hold your breath waiting.

Why? When dealing with the truth the information is easy to find. It's only when trying to hid the truth or lie does it become difficult to support your claim. Obama knows all about that on this one.

What I dodn't get is why lie? Why purposely create a false story about this? All they simply had to say was we are investigating and we will let you know when we know for certain what happened. The whole thing would never have been this dirty issue and rope around their neck.

There are a few posters here who need to turn on Fox or follow Facebook. It seems like many no nothing about what has transpired today regarding todays testimony. I posted early this morning about Peter Kings remarks. The hearings started very early this morning, long before the media arrived.

If Mr. Obama has a lie told often enough with enough people saying it will never make it true.

Originally Posted by FL Knifemaker

There are a few posters here who need to turn on Fox or follow Facebook. It seems like many no nothing about what has transpired today regarding todays testimony. I posted early this morning about Peter Kings remarks. The hearings started very early this morning, long before the media arrived.

Much like a vampire and holy water.....it burns too bad.

Originally Posted by LcJ

Much like a vampire and holy water.....it burns too bad.

Ya, its' much easier to keep your head in the sand than face the fact that Obama is capable of anything.

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

What I dodn't get is why lie? Why purposely create a false story about this? All they simply had to say was we are investigating and we will let you know when we know for certain what happened. The whole thing would never have been this dirty issue and rope around their neck.

When the narative you are trying to portray is that you are the smasher of terrorism ... it doesn't look good when terrorists kill your people.

Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492

Here is the story of what happened. Note, no talk of any protest. An hour before the attack The ambassador walked a Turkish delegate to the gate. Not something you do when there is a protest taking place.

http://news.yahoo.com/state-dept-rev...062900114.html





When asked about the video starting a protest that led to the attack state department officials said:



http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...hazi_consulate

According to Petraeus he said the CIA talking points were edited not to include terrorism. He also

http://mrctv.org/videos/king-petraeu...down-terrorism

According to Patraeus he knew "almost immeidately" after the attack that it was tied to Al-Queada.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...zi_663458.html

So lets re-cap. There was no protest or any proof of a protest from the people on the ground. The State department never felt this had anything to do with a video. The talking points were editted to play down terrorism. Petraeus doesn't know where Susan got her information. It's clear the video had nothing to do with this and the key plays knew "almost immediately" it was a terrorist attack.

None of that says the State Department never thought the attack was linked with a protest, as you claim.

The unintended consequences of all the Islamic ass kissing Mr. Obama did was to make us appear weak and a terrorist attack on our Embassy just couldn't happen because it would make it seem as if they really didn't change their opinions about us because of HIM. That goes against his plan and we all know he knows best so that just couldn't happen. The sad part is, it did and it was too close to his election for him to admit he should have had a firm backbone instead one that could bow so easily.

Originally Posted by thunder1

None of that says the State Department never thought the attack was linked with a protest, as you claimed.

I could see that those watching the video might have thought it was a protest.............For about 2 minutes right up until the guys with the RPGs, AK's and Mortors started showing up.

I'm sure we will soon find out that Obama's handlers put the spin on things. Axlerod and Jarrett. Who else would pull such a stunt??