WP Glenn Kessler: Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?

pbrauer · Oct 30, 2015

The fact checker only gave Rubio 2 Pinocchios, but it shows Hillary Clinton didn't lie.

“Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks at the GOP presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Oct. 28. 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

These were pretty strong words uttered by Rubio at the third GOP debate, and they give us an opportunity to explore what was said by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the week after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.

Republicans have charged that, because of the pending 2012 election, the Obama administration deliberately played down the possibility of a terrorist attack, emphasizing instead that the incident started as a protest against an anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. In our timeline on the administration’s statements, we found that in particular President Obama appeared reluctant to use the phrase “terrorist attack.”

New e-mails disclosed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi were among the most newsworthy elements at the 11-hour hearing on Oct. 22 featuring Clinton. But a review of Clinton’s public statements indicates that she was generally careful to separate remarks about the attack and the protests. However, there may have been a different story concerning her private remarks to the families of the victims, according to recent interviews.

In her testimony, Clinton attributed any shifting emphasis on to what might be called the “fog of war”— information was fragmentary and disjointed, changing hour by hour.

The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).

Snip

H/T MMfA

ocean515 · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
The fact checker only gave Rubio 2 Pinocchios, but it shows Hillary Clinton didn't lie.

“Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks at the GOP presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Oct. 28. 2015

These were pretty strong words uttered by Rubio at the third GOP debate, and they give us an opportunity to explore what was said by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the week after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.

Republicans have charged that, because of the pending 2012 election, the Obama administration deliberately played down the possibility of a terrorist attack, emphasizing instead that the incident started as a protest against an anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. In our timeline on the administration’s statements, we found that in particular President Obama appeared reluctant to use the phrase “terrorist attack.”

New e-mails disclosed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi were among the most newsworthy elements at the 11-hour hearing on Oct. 22 featuring Clinton. But a review of Clinton’s public statements indicates that she was generally careful to separate remarks about the attack and the protests. However, there may have been a different story concerning her private remarks to the families of the victims, according to recent interviews.

In her testimony, Clinton attributed any shifting emphasis on to what might be called the “fog of war”— information was fragmentary and disjointed, changing hour by hour.

The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).

Snip

H/T MMfA

I guess telling her family it was Al-Qaeda like elements while telling families it was a video, and influencing the arrest of the video maker, proves she didn't lie.

There can't be enough straws in the world to clutch at, to make any rational thinking person believe that.

OrphanSlug · Oct 30, 2015

In a very sad way, what actually happened in Benghazi as well as this administration's response(s) no longer matters. This is not about sincerity for or interest in Chris Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, or their families.

The OP is engaging in the same thing the right is doing on this subject. Finding anything and everything they can to either support Hillary using any sort of articles and/or analysis from the likes of MediaMatters or suggesting something sinister and criminal using articles and/or analysis from probably FoxNews.

What is sad is the 2014 Report linked by the OP and OP article suggests...

"Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attack were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks."

We are never going to know in totality what exactly happened and who started making decisions on what to say to the public. Odds are the Obama Administration, Hillary herself, and several others did intend to place blame for the attacks on something that later was shown to not be the factor for the attack.

Is there anything criminal here? Probably not. Was this misleading? Probably so. Is this a poor showing on Hillary's ability to be executive? It should. Will the left care? No. Will the right care? They would not vote for her anyway. Will the independents care? They are already tired of the story and have concluded something along the lines of what I have. Neither Democrats or Republicans are sincere in their actions over Benghazi. Nor is the OP, or MediaMatters, or FoxNews, etc. If Hillary was not running for President we would not have seen so much money spent and committee time invested in this.

It has all become a matter of political gain and loss, and too many people are in on it.

MrT · Oct 30, 2015

ocean515 said:
I guess telling her family it was Al-Qaeda like elements while telling families it was a video, and influencing the arrest of the video maker, proves she didn't lie.

There can't be enough straws in the world to clutch at, to make any rational thinking person believe that.

The statement made by Hillary Clinton the night of the attack is that "some have sought to justify this attack because of material on the internet." That statement does not denote that the attack must be caused by or initiated by the video online. To justify an event can be synonymous with the concept that someone believes an event was acceptable because of a particular reason.

KLATTU · Oct 30, 2015

ocean515 said:
I guess telling her family it was Al-Qaeda like elements while telling families it was a video, and influencing the arrest of the video maker, proves she didn't lie.

There can't be enough straws in the world to clutch at, to make any rational thinking person believe that.

I think he also believed because OJ had trouble getting that glove on, he didn't do it. LOL

ocean515 · Oct 30, 2015

KLATTU said:
I think he also believed because OJ had trouble getting that glove on, he didn't do it. LOL

If the video fit, the excuse is legit....

KLATTU · Oct 30, 2015

...the reasonale person standard. If the facts were unclear at the time, why would anybody specifically mention that video in front of the families?

Hicup · Oct 30, 2015

Holy crap pb.. Ok I should have known, but come on man, she freaking lied, lied, lied. Just like she lied about taking sniper fire, like she lied about Whitewater, like she lied about her tenure as SoS and really what it amounted to being was a front for her "foundation".. She's the most corrupt politician, man or women I have known.

Tim-

Beaudreaux · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
The fact checker only gave Rubio 2 Pinocchios, but it shows Hillary Clinton didn't lie.

“Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks at the GOP presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Oct. 28. 2015

These were pretty strong words uttered by Rubio at the third GOP debate, and they give us an opportunity to explore what was said by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the week after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.

Republicans have charged that, because of the pending 2012 election, the Obama administration deliberately played down the possibility of a terrorist attack, emphasizing instead that the incident started as a protest against an anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. In our timeline on the administration’s statements, we found that in particular President Obama appeared reluctant to use the phrase “terrorist attack.”

New e-mails disclosed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi were among the most newsworthy elements at the 11-hour hearing on Oct. 22 featuring Clinton. But a review of Clinton’s public statements indicates that she was generally careful to separate remarks about the attack and the protests. However, there may have been a different story concerning her private remarks to the families of the victims, according to recent interviews.

In her testimony, Clinton attributed any shifting emphasis on to what might be called the “fog of war”— information was fragmentary and disjointed, changing hour by hour.

The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).

Snip

H/T MMfA

She either did or did not say what she said. If she said it, as she has admitted doing and we now have evidence, then she lied. If she did not say it, then all the evidence is incorrect, Rubio is a liar, and Hillary told the truth at every step of the way.

Here's my question - given the facts, Pete, how can any reasonable person (defined as not ignoring facts for political gain) come to any other conclusion than she told one thing to one group and something different to an entirely different group including the American people as a whole, and not have one of those statements be false with her knowledge that one is false?

pbrauer · Oct 30, 2015

Beaudreaux said:
She either did or did not say what she said. If she said it, as she has admitted doing and we now have evidence, then she lied. If she did not say it, then all the evidence is incorrect, Rubio is a liar, and Hillary told the truth at every step of the way.

Here's my question - given the facts, Pete, how can any reasonable person (defined as not ignoring facts for political gain) come to any other conclusion than she told one thing to one group and something different to an entirely different group including the American people as a whole, and not have one of those statements be false with her knowledge that one is false?

I forgot to put the link to the Washington Post article, please read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

Grim17 · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
The fact checker only gave Rubio 2 Pinocchios, but it shows Hillary Clinton didn't lie.

“Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks at the GOP presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Oct. 28. 2015

These were pretty strong words uttered by Rubio at the third GOP debate, and they give us an opportunity to explore what was said by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the week after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.

Republicans have charged that, because of the pending 2012 election, the Obama administration deliberately played down the possibility of a terrorist attack, emphasizing instead that the incident started as a protest against an anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. In our timeline on the administration’s statements, we found that in particular President Obama appeared reluctant to use the phrase “terrorist attack.”

New e-mails disclosed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi were among the most newsworthy elements at the 11-hour hearing on Oct. 22 featuring Clinton. But a review of Clinton’s public statements indicates that she was generally careful to separate remarks about the attack and the protests. However, there may have been a different story concerning her private remarks to the families of the victims, according to recent interviews.

In her testimony, Clinton attributed any shifting emphasis on to what might be called the “fog of war”— information was fragmentary and disjointed, changing hour by hour.

The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).

Snip

H/T MMfA

Leave it to Media Matters to distort what Kessler said about Hillary and the Obama Administration', and for Pete to buy it hook, line and sinker.

Here's what Kessler said about Hillary and the Obama Administrations public statement about the Benghazi attack:

For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation.

Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

Lie -
something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

.

Paperview · Oct 30, 2015

Grim17 said:
Leave it to Media Matters to distort what Kessler said about Hillary and the Obama Administration', and for Pete to buy it hook, line and sinker.

Here's what Kessler said about Hillary and the Obama Administrations public statement about the Benghazi attack:

For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation.

Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

Lie -
something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

.

Holy **** man, you cite a column by Kessler from September 2012??

Geezez. Talk about duplicitous.

betuadollar · Oct 30, 2015

Obama had committed to not putting troops on the ground right? So this administration sacrificed these people to save political face. That's what this is about. And then they tracked down videoman, revoked his parole, and thew him back in jail.

Grim17 · Oct 30, 2015

Paperview said:
Holy **** man, you cite a column by Kessler from September 2012??

Geezez. Talk about duplicitous.

1. It was linked to in the op.

2. September 2012 is when Hillary and Obama lied to the American people about the Benghazi attack.

.

pbrauer · Oct 30, 2015

Grim17 said:
Leave it to Media Matters to distort what Kessler said about Hillary and the Obama Administration', and for Pete to buy it hook, line and sinker.

Here's what Kessler said about Hillary and the Obama Administrations public statement about the Benghazi attack:

For political reasons, it certainly was in the White House’s interests to not portray the attack as a terrorist incident, especially one that took place on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Instead the administration kept the focus on what was ultimately a red herring — anger in the Arab world over anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. With key phrases and message discipline, the administration was able to conflate an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt — which apparently was prompted by the video — with the deadly assault in Benghazi.

Officials were also able to dismiss pointed questions by referring to an ongoing investigation.

Ultimately, when the head of the National Counterterrorism Center was asked pointblank on Capitol Hill whether it was a an act of terror — and he agreed — the administration talking points began to shift. (Tough news reporting — as well as statements by Libya’s president — also played a role.) Yet President Obama himself resisted using the “t” word, even as late as Tuesday, while keeping the focus on the video in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly.

Lie -
something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

.

Read what Kessler says now, I forgot the link in the OP .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

Beaudreaux · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
I forgot to put the link to the Washington Post article, please read it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

Thanks Pete. It looks like the timeline in the article actually confirms what Rubio stated at the debate. However, the author of the article tries to justify all this by saying that Mrs. Clinton separated her statements and "parsed" (my description) her words to "bifurcate" (again, my description) one from the other. IF that were true, then why intentionally conflate them in the same statement or speech? It's simple. She did exactly what Rubio stated, and to believe otherwise is blind loyalty and intentional misdirection from the truth, which is what Mrs. Clinton also did.

pbrauer · Oct 30, 2015

Beaudreaux said:
Thanks Pete. It looks like the timeline in the article actually confirms what Rubio stated at the debate. However, the author of the article tries to justify all this by saying that Mrs. Clinton separated her statements and "parsed" (my description) her words to "bifurcate" (again, my description) one from the other. IF that were true, then why intentionally conflate them in the same statement or speech? It's simple. She did exactly what Rubio stated, and to believe otherwise is blind loyalty and intentional misdirection from the truth, which is what Mrs. Clinton also did.

Did you read the article where he mentions the CIA?

Beaudreaux · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
Did you read the article where he mentions the CIA?

Yes I did. However, all that matters in the article in the context of whether Rubio was correct or not, are the quotes of what Mrs. Clinton actually said, since that is what Rubio was referring to.

Grim17 · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
Read what Kessler says now, I forgot the link in the OP .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

Since more than 3 years have passed, Kessler has obviously adopted a perspective based on the literal meaning of her carefully crafted words and not the implications of those words, that back then were the basis of his perspective.

Hillary and the administration purposely inserted the "protest over an internet video" narrative in every speech that centered on the attack in Benghazi to convey a false narrative to the American people, including telling family members of those killed that it was due to that video. They continued to allow people to believe this until mounting pressure from the public and the media forced them to finally admit the truth... that there was never any protest, never any evidence of any protest, and that the video had nothing to do with that pre-planned terrorist attack.

joG · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
The fact checker only gave Rubio 2 Pinocchios, but it shows Hillary Clinton didn't lie.

“Last week, Hillary Clinton went before a committee. She admitted she had sent e-mails to her family saying, ‘Hey, this attack at Benghazi was caused by Al Qaida-like elements.’ She spent over a week telling the families of those victims and the American people that it was because of a video. And yet the mainstream media is going around saying it was the greatest week in Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It was the week she got exposed as a liar.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), remarks at the GOP presidential debate hosted by CNBC, Oct. 28. 2015

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

These were pretty strong words uttered by Rubio at the third GOP debate, and they give us an opportunity to explore what was said by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the week after the 2012 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador.

Republicans have charged that, because of the pending 2012 election, the Obama administration deliberately played down the possibility of a terrorist attack, emphasizing instead that the incident started as a protest against an anti-Muslim video posted on You Tube. In our timeline on the administration’s statements, we found that in particular President Obama appeared reluctant to use the phrase “terrorist attack.”

New e-mails disclosed by the House Select Committee on Benghazi were among the most newsworthy elements at the 11-hour hearing on Oct. 22 featuring Clinton. But a review of Clinton’s public statements indicates that she was generally careful to separate remarks about the attack and the protests. However, there may have been a different story concerning her private remarks to the families of the victims, according to recent interviews.

In her testimony, Clinton attributed any shifting emphasis on to what might be called the “fog of war”— information was fragmentary and disjointed, changing hour by hour.

The House Intelligence Committee, in its 2014 report on the incident, said “there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks.”

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility was after receiving an e-mail from the Libya station chief on Sept. 15, three days after the attack. (An intelligence report from the Tripoli station making a similar observation arrived on Sept. 14.) Morell said the assessment “jumped out” at him because it contradicted the views of CIA analysts in Washington that the attacks were inspired by the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo (which had been spurred by the video).

Snip

H/T MMfA

Watch the White House tapes and listen to Obama' s and SoS telephone calls and the judge would know.

pbrauer · Oct 30, 2015

Grim17 said:
Since more than 3 years have passed, Kessler has obviously adopted a perspective based on the literal meaning of her carefully crafted words and not the implications of those words, that back then were the basis of his perspective.

Wrong, it's as obvious as the nose on your face that Kessler did his fact check based on what Rubio said in the debate. That's when he started researching the topic.

Hillary and the administration purposely inserted the "protest over an internet video" narrative in every speech that centered on the attack in Benghazi to convey a false narrative to the American people, including telling family members of those killed that it was due to that video. They continued to allow people to believe this until mounting pressure from the public and the media forced them to finally admit the truth... that there was never any protest, never any evidence of any protest, and that the video had nothing to do with that pre-planned terrorist attack.

Wrong again, you need to read what Kessler said about the CIA

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility

(Morell’s testimony contradicts Rubio’s claim on CNN on Oct. 29, the morning after the debate, that “there was never a shred of evidence presented to anyone that this was spontaneous. And the CIA understood that.” On CBS, Rubio also claimed that it was “not accurate” that the CIA changed its assessment, which is also wrong.)

Ironically, the CIA’s initial Sept. 12 executive update stated that “this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest.” But because the report had no intelligence to support it, that language was dropped as analysts developed a theory about a protest, the House panel report said.

In all, CIA analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, both from the media and inside the intelligence community. The Washington Post even had a front page story on Sept. 12 about a protest preceding the attack, quoting among others, the Libyan deputy interior minister.

Amazingly, the CIA analysts did not gain access to eyewitness accounts until Sept. 22, when the FBI first published an intelligence report on its interviews.

The intelligence community “only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012,” the House report said.

Grim17 · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
Wrong, it's as obvious as the nose on your face that Kessler did his fact check based on what Rubio said in the debate. That's when he started researching the topic.

Wrong again, you need to read what Kessler said about the CIA

The CIA’s deputy director, Michael Morell, testified that the first time he learned there had not been a protest at the diplomatic facility

(Morell’s testimony contradicts Rubio’s claim on CNN on Oct. 29, the morning after the debate, that “there was never a shred of evidence presented to anyone that this was spontaneous. And the CIA understood that.” On CBS, Rubio also claimed that it was “not accurate” that the CIA changed its assessment, which is also wrong.)

Ironically, the CIA’s initial Sept. 12 executive update stated that “this was an intentional assault and not the escalation of a peaceful protest.” But because the report had no intelligence to support it, that language was dropped as analysts developed a theory about a protest, the House panel report said.

In all, CIA analysts received 21 reports that a protest occurred in Benghazi, both from the media and inside the intelligence community. The Washington Post even had a front page story on Sept. 12 about a protest preceding the attack, quoting among others, the Libyan deputy interior minister.

Amazingly, the CIA analysts did not gain access to eyewitness accounts until Sept. 22, when the FBI first published an intelligence report on its interviews.

The intelligence community “only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012,” the House report said.

I don't think I expressed myself very well, and believe there is come confusion about the reports.

Whether or not there was a peaceful protest prior to the attack was still in question for several days after the night of the attack, but what was never reported or believed to be the case by the intelligence community, was that the attack spontaneously grew out of anger over that internet video from any such protest that may or may not have occurred.

Or put in plain language, the intelligence community never received information that indicated, nor did they ever report, that those attacks were carried out by protesters who were angry over that video, even if such a protest had taken place. They always believed right from the start that the attack was a pre-planned, organized attack by islamic extremists, not a spontaneous attack by angry protesters.

But that false narrative is precisely what both Obama and Hillary Clinton led the American people to believe.

.

NonoBadDog · Oct 30, 2015

pbrauer said:
Read what Kessler says now, I forgot the link in the OP .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news.../10/30/is-hillary-clinton-a-liar-on-benghazi/

You sure forget a lot of stuff. All the forgetting and skipping around with more articles makes it hard to keep interest and puts a real doubt as to why you "forgot".

pbrauer · Oct 31, 2015

Grim17 said:
I don't think I expressed myself very well, and believe there is come confusion about the reports.

Whether or not there was a peaceful protest prior to the attack was still in question for several days after the night of the attack, but what was never reported or believed to be the case by the intelligence community, was that the attack spontaneously grew out of anger over that internet video from any such protest that may or may not have occurred.

Or put in plain language, the intelligence community never received information that indicated, nor did they ever report, that those attacks were carried out by protesters who were angry over that video, even if such a protest had taken place. They always believed right from the start that the attack was a pre-planned, organized attack by islamic extremists, not a spontaneous attack by angry protesters.

But that false narrative is precisely what both Obama and Hillary Clinton led the American people to believe.

.

It wasn't a false narrative, at the time there was conflicting evidence. Yeah they "knew" in their heart of hearts it was a terrorist attack but since they didn't have concrete evidence they could not say on the world stage it was al Qaida. So what Hillary said to daughter was not as damning as you think it was. It was the truth as they saw it. That's why Hillary had to parse her words during in her testimony.

Hillary didn't lie, she said after 9/11/12 is the best they had in a fog of war situation.

rocket88 · Oct 31, 2015

Hicup said:
Holy crap pb.. Ok I should have known, but come on man, she freaking lied, lied, lied. Just like she lied about taking sniper fire, like she lied about Whitewater, like she lied about her tenure as SoS and really what it amounted to being was a front for her "foundation".. She's the most corrupt politician, man or women I have known.

Tim-

She's not even close to the most corrupt. What you meant to say is "She's a liberal."

WP Glenn Kessler: Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?

pbrauer

ocean515

OrphanSlug

Forum Cynic

MrT

KLATTU

ocean515

KLATTU

Hicup

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

pbrauer

Grim17

Battle Ready

Paperview

betuadollar

Grim17

Battle Ready

pbrauer

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

pbrauer

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend

Grim17

Battle Ready

joG

pbrauer

Grim17

Battle Ready

NonoBadDog

Hates Kittens

pbrauer

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

WP Glenn Kessler: Is Hillary Clinton a ‘liar’ on Benghazi?

Forum Cynic

Preserve Protect Defend

Battle Ready

Battle Ready

Preserve Protect Defend

Preserve Protect Defend

Battle Ready

Battle Ready

Hates Kittens

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency