Originally Posted by RumRunner_1492
Why would they think it was linked to a protest? THERE WAS NO PROTEST. I don't know how much more clear it could be. When it was almost dark the ambassador walked a guest out and there was no one there but security. Unless the security gaurds were protesting then there was no protest. The next people that showed up weren't protesting. They were attacking. People don't protest with RPG's and machine guns. People don't typically start a protest in the dark. It defeats the point if no one can see you protest. They do assault and attack at night. When the consulate called tripoli, the white house and the reaction team it was about an attack, not a protest.
I cannot believe the lengths that some of you will go to try to continue to accept the presidents story when no facts support it and they all show they have been lying. It's amazing.
In the days after the attack, exactly what happened was unclear. Many different streams of intelligence were being received by the State Department all at once, and they made their best estimate of the situation based on the entirety of what was going on in the region at that time.
You seem to be parsing what they said on the 16th of September, with what they later learned, and indeed reported in October. Are you trying to back date their October reporting of what happened to before Rice made her statement on the 16th of September? Worse, you seem to be coming to your own conclusions as to how such events transpire. Your speculation now has no greater merit than that of the State Department in the days following the attack.