Conservatives, would you like some clarification on Benghazi?
I'm tired of this, so let's clear this up. Susan Rice interview September 16, 5 days after the attack:
"So we’ll want to see the results of that [FBI] investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy– –sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent."
What was that about a scandal? What was that about lying for two weeks?
Team, do you not understand what a "thorough investigation" is, or are you just playing stupid?
Pretending to understand things at an elementary level doesn't win you an argument.
- 8 years agoFavorite Answer
The f*cking ambassador told the marines "We are under attack" The Administration knew it was a terrorist attack the whole time. Hicks, who was the second in command in Tripoli said today, he was embarrassed that Susan Rice said it was a spontaneous riot. The Obama Administration covered up, from the end of the attack, that a US ambassador was kidnapped and killed, while the US Military was ordered not to do anything.
Roy Bates can free a hostage and protect the nation of Sealand with a shotgun and a helicopter, why can't Obama protect a embassy armed by marines?
- teamLv 78 years ago
here's clarification for you:
■There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests
■Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack
■Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
■Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”
"We have the ability to load out, get on birds, at a minimum stage. C110 had the ability to be there, in my opinion, in 4 to 6 hours from their European theater to react. They would have been there before the second attack,"
According to the source, there were at least 15 special forces and highly skilled State Dept. security staff in the Libyan capital of Tripoli who were not deployed even though they were trained as a quick response force. By air, the travel time between Tripoli and Benghazi is roughly over one hour.
- J&JLv 58 years ago
There was NO protest in Benghazi. Testimony today.
She was LYING. Like President Obama and Hillary did while they were literally standing next to the flag-draped coffins of their friends. All for re-election.
Now they have the nerve to call the hearings 'politics'. They have blood on their hands.
- hensleeLv 44 years ago
Which one is the malevolent one? the single the deity of Abraham did no longer like (devil) or the single that keeps ordering or doing all the killing (YHWH)? From what i've got have been given seen there are a number of, many christians that think of of all people who does not believe an identical way as they do is being misled by utilising devil. that is not any longer basically utilized to atheists the two. various them will say an identical approximately diverse christians from diverse sects. I forget approximately approximately them. they are basically projecting their very own soreness in direction of - or possibly hatred of - those diverse from them onto a deity parent no count if or no longer they do no longer consciously understand they are doing it.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Blue_MiDnightsLv 68 years ago
She was supposed to break protocol and reveal classified musings no matter what the consequences are. Anything less would be treason. Or is it the other way around...
- Brian C.K.Lv 58 years ago
"At this point, what difference does it make"? -Hillary Clinton
Sarah, What they believed at the time? It was 9/11 for crying out loud and I didn't believe it. Jesus Freaking Christ!Source(s): Joe Biden's ad for the 2016 Presidential run
- Anonymous8 years ago
To add to you post, the nation's top intelligence agency confirms Rice's comments were what they believed at the time, and that the ongoing investigation provided a more thorough explaination of the attacks. http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releas...