So the State Dept. lied?

 

According to former WH officials, no one goes out on Sunday talk shows without the message being approved by the WH.

 

Again, if it was only ONE of many possibilities, why did they hone in on that one?

 

The WSJ said that for the first WEEK the reports were saying the film issue was still in play.

 

Report said that later that Sunday they started getting reports that it may not have been the film. It would be another week before the intelligence agencies changed their position.

 

So I struggle with you guys saying she lied and KNEW she was lying.

The WSJ said that for the first WEEK the reports were saying the film issue was still in play.

 

Report said that later that Sunday they started getting reports that it may not have been the film. It would be another week before the intelligence agencies changed their position.

 

So I struggle with you guys saying she lied and KNEW she was lying.

 

I struggle with your naivete.

 

You basically say the State Dept. is lying and they watched it in real time. More emails have came out today showing what was happening. It was known that there were no demonstrations within 24 hours. They knew it wasn't caused by a film. Anyone with any knowledge of military actions could see that.

I think what is being lost here in this discussion and one question that I would seriously like to know the answer to is this. Why, when Ambassador Stevens asked for more security detail after the US Consulate was attacked twice this year, was he denied additional detail? This is truly sad. Here BOTH sides are playing "politics" with this situation. This could have been prevented if Stevens would have gotten what he had requested.

10 years ago it was "Bush lied and people died" now it's a fluid situation.

I think what is being lost here in this discussion and one question that I would seriously like to know the answer to is this. Why, when Ambassador Stevens asked for more security detail after the US Consulate was attacked twice this year, was he denied additional detail? This is truly sad. Here BOTH sides are playing "politics" with this situation. This could have been prevented if Stevens would have gotten what he had requested.

 

Ms. Lamb says she denied the request for additional security.

Ms. Lamb says she denied the request for additional security.

 

But why?

I struggle with your naivete.

 

You basically say the State Dept. is lying and they watched it in real time. More emails have came out today showing what was happening. It was known that there were no demonstrations within 24 hours. They knew it wasn't caused by a film. Anyone with any knowledge of military actions could see that.

 

What am I missing that shows the State Dept knew as it was happening that it was a terrorist act? Did I misread something?

I think what is being lost here in this discussion and one question that I would seriously like to know the answer to is this. Why, when Ambassador Stevens asked for more security detail after the US Consulate was attacked twice this year, was he denied additional detail? This is truly sad. Here BOTH sides are playing "politics" with this situation. This could have been prevented if Stevens would have gotten what he had requested.

 

This plus why wasn't help sent while it was happening? It's my understand major help including air support was an hour away.

 

And why is the video maker still in jail?

I think what is being lost here in this discussion and one question that I would seriously like to know the answer to is this. Why, when Ambassador Stevens asked for more security detail after the US Consulate was attacked twice this year, was he denied additional detail? This is truly sad. Here BOTH sides are playing "politics" with this situation. This could have been prevented if Stevens would have gotten what he had requested.

 

This makes way more sense to complain about instead of what was or wasn't said in the Rose Garden.

What am I missing that shows the State Dept knew as it was happening that it was a terrorist act? Did I misread something?

 

FACTS have come out, Clizzy. They just don't fit your agenda.

But why?

 

Good question.

Again, the WSJ says your conclusion is incorrect.

 

Unfortunately, it requires a subscription to read the entire story.

 

Its getting enough coverage....

 

I will quote (gulp) Media Matters....

 

WSJ Columnist Claims Benghazi Cover-up, Same Day WSJ Debunks Claims of Benghazi Cover-up | Blog | Media Matters for America

 

 

"President Barack Obama was told in his daily intelligence briefing for more than a week after the consulate siege in Benghazi that the assault grew out of a spontaneous protest, despite conflicting reports from witnesses and other sources that began to cast doubt on the accuracy of that assessment almost from the start."

 

Not sure who is wrong - WSJ, the leaker who gave this informatoin (mis-information?) to WSJ, etc...

 

But as posted earlier - there was NO PROTEST. Ever. This was a targeted assault from the start. So any reference to a protest is either corruption or incompetence or both.

 

100s of people listened and watched this 6-hour assault basically live and in real time.

 

Colonel Hunt reviews the State Deparement testimony here:

 

Col. Hunt On The Newest Libyan Revelations

 

I posted this interview earlier. It is worth listening to. It is long but it is a description of what happens. A dozen government posts were listening to this in real time. Until the radio is destroyed. They probably all heard the death of the person manning the radio and describing the attack.

 

http://bluegrasspreps.com/kentucky-national-politics/protecting-our-embassies-241981-page2.html#post4481511

What am I missing that shows the State Dept knew as it was happening that it was a terrorist act? Did I misread something?

 

A well organized, heavily armed, orchastrated attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

A well organized, heavily armed, orchastrated attack on the anniversary of 9/11.

 

Doesn't answer the question posed. The claim is that it was KNOWN immediately that it was a terrorist attack. Nothing I have read, including the link in post #1, shows that. So I'm asking if there is factual reporting that I missed that shows without question that Ms Rice was lying and KNEW she was lying?

But why?

 

Bear with me. I'm a at a hotel with a dreadful internet connection. Takes forever for a page to load.

 

With that, I remember reading that she felt there were enough and that there was a "safe haven" for them to get to if needed. I think there were 3 official US security personnel despite Mr Kennedy saying there should be 5.