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.

 

Report of the Rep Issa/Ms Lamb conversation.

 

Lamb to the slaughter | The Cable

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.

 

Me too...it sucks!

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?

 

What they did KNOW is that it WAS NOT a PROTEST related in any way to Egypt or the video and the KNEW it was a assault that STARTED as an ASSAULT - and NOT a PROTEST.

 

But they repeatably played up the protest and video link.

 

Maybe they will just classify it as 'workplace violence' when its all over. It has worked so far in Texas.

What they did KNOW is that it WAS NOT a PROTEST related in any way to Egypt or the video and the KNEW it was a assault that STARTED as an ASSAULT - and NOT a PROTEST.

 

.

 

BGC, you and others keep saying what they knew and when. I'm asking what other than supposition do you have to support that? I can't find anything concrete to support that contention.

BGC, you and others keep saying what they knew and when. I'm asking what other than supposition do you have to support that? I can't find anything concrete to support that contention.

What I'm thinking here (and I'm not speaking for BGC) is that since there was a drone and it was broadcasting a video feed in "real time" back to our State Dept. So the President (or at least some "higher ups") knew what was going on. Or maybe they should have at least been able to dissect what was going on. While the video may have been to blame for other protests, it should have been clear that it wasn't in this assault. Just my 2 cents...

BGC, you and others keep saying what they knew and when. I'm asking what other than supposition do you have to support that? I can't find anything concrete to support that contention.

 

E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

 

Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11 - CBS News

 

Interview shows Obama downplayed mob violence explanation day after Libya attack | Fox News

 

How many more links would you like?

What I'm thinking here (and I'm not speaking for BGC) is that since there was a drone and it was broadcasting a video feed in "real time" back to our State Dept. So the President (or at least some "higher ups") knew what was going on. Or maybe they should have at least been able to dissect what was going on. While the video may have been to blame for other protests, it should have been clear that it wasn't in this assault. Just my 2 cents...

 

WSJ said that for about 7 days the intelligence reports coming into the WH said the movie was the likely cause.

 

How do we get past that to surmise what they knew?

E-mails: White House knew of extremist claims in Benghazi attack - CNN.com

 

Emails detail unfolding Benghazi attack on Sept. 11 - CBS News

 

Interview shows Obama downplayed mob violence explanation day after Libya attack | Fox News

 

How many more links would you like?

 

How many? I'll take 1 that DOESN'T say a)that there were conflicting reports b)it was refuted by the terrorist organization c)there were multiple and conflicting reports and d)didn't have every one looking to immediately place blame base their desire on a FB post.

 

Just one.

BGC, you and others keep saying what they knew and when. I'm asking what other than supposition do you have to support that? I can't find anything concrete to support that contention.

 

I am saying the knew what DID NOT happen. A protest did NOT happen. Never. And they knew that. So making it sound like the Egypt sitation was a lie - from the beginning.

 

I will use a sports analogy. I do not get overly upset (usually) about a missed call by a referee. Maybe dozens of others from different angles saw it but the ref was in a blind spot. But when a referee calls a penalty on something that did not happen then I get more upset. And that is what happened here. There was no protest, there never was a protest. To inject this 'fact' into the statements early and to issue apologies over an event that that did not happen.

 

You can hide behind a 'we do not know' or a 'I can not recall' answer - lame as it is - for a while. But when you start making up alternate stories to injecting narrative that has no basis at all - since it never happened - then you open yourself to the question of why you are making up this alternate narrative (i.e. lies) and for what purpose.

 

For backup to the above:

 

State Department: No video protest at the Benghazi consulate | The Cable

 

"The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound," a senior State Department official said. "Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside."

 

..

 

"But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is 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," U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said Sept. 16 on NBC's Meet the Press.

 

 

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

 

Emphasis added.

 

So if the State Department did not give Ms. Rice the information - it was after all a STATE DEPARTMENT incident - who did?

WSJ said that for about 7 days the intelligence reports coming into the WH said the movie was the likely cause.

 

How do we get past that to surmise what they knew?

 

It seems to me the movie is still cited as part of the reason for the attack, at least from those familiar with the group and the group itself.

 

Also, this is what Obama said the next day on 60 Minutes: "You're right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt and my suspicion is that there are folks involved in this who were looking to target Americans from the start."

How many? I'll take 1 that DOESN'T say a)that there were conflicting reports b)it was refuted by the terrorist organization c)there were multiple and conflicting reports and d)didn't have every one looking to immediately place blame base their desire on a FB post.

 

Just one.

 

I don't think that would suffice.

 

Let's play your game. I have asked and you have yet to answer the question.

 

Why did the Obama administration decide on the video story if there was, as you say, conflicting reports?

I don't think that would suffice.

 

Let's play your game. I have asked and you have yet to answer the question.

 

Why did the Obama administration decide on the video story if there was, as you say, conflicting reports?

 

From what I've gathered ie not guessed at it was based upon intelligence reports.

 

Unlike many I'm open to new info. I'm pretty well established as one who does research on here (like BGC) and do not go nuts off of what the talking heads say. So if you have something (like the timeline BGC laid out) then I'm open. However, if you continue to hang your hat on heat-of-the-moment emails that really didn't say much then I can't put a lot of stock in your opinions.

 

Again, I'm open to anything that supports your contention.

The sad thing we now live in an age where everyone seems to think we have to know every detail concerning national security, such as in the mission that got Bin Ladin, we shouldn't know all the details of how we operate as it tells our adversaries as well.

From what I've gathered ie not guessed at it was based upon intelligence reports.

 

Unlike many I'm open to new info. I'm pretty well established as one who does research on here (like BGC) and do not go nuts off of what the talking heads say. So if you have something (like the timeline BGC laid out) then I'm open. However, if you continue to hang your hat on heat-of-the-moment emails that really didn't say much then I can't put a lot of stock in your opinions.

 

Again, I'm open to anything that supports your contention.

 

I referenced testimony in the Congressional hearing, same as BGC. I didn't lay out a time line as he did.

 

I do my research, maybe you should do more.

 

Yeah, why should we believe the emails, they only came from the people on the ground in Libya. What would they know, right?

 

I really could care less what "stock" you put in my opinions. A statement like that, without knowing me, shows quite a bit of arrogance on your part.

 

My concern is we have 4 dead Americans. It has been nearly 7 weeks and there has not been a press conference on the subject. If the POTUS, no matter who he/she is, is going to take credit for bin Laden, you have to take responsibility for Benghazi. The families of the murdered victims deserve answers.

I referenced testimony in the Congressional hearing, same as BGC. I didn't lay out a time line as he did.

 

I do my research, maybe you should do more.

 

Yeah, why should we believe the emails, they only came from the people on the ground in Libya. What would they know, right?

 

I really could care less what "stock" you put in my opinions. A statement like that, without knowing me, shows quite a bit of arrogance on your part.

 

My concern is we have 4 dead Americans. It has been nearly 7 weeks and there has not been a press conference on the subject. If the POTUS, no matter who he/she is, is going to take credit for bin Laden, you have to take responsibility for Benghazi. The families of the murdered victims deserve answers.

 

 

You're absolutely right. Those families deserve answers. Not capt278 or PP92.