The talking points were released to the press. Originally Posted by flghtr65That doesn't mean you know what the CIA thought!!
Apparently this guy got shit for brains. This flighty turd does not read. The original CIA talking points were correct and 12 revisions were done to them by Odumbo's pinkos.HANHANHANHANHANHANHANHANHANHAN HANHAN!
Libtards don't read or think. They only feel and they mostly feel hate. Originally Posted by Uncle Han
That doesn't mean you know what the CIA thought!!LL, study up. Keep in mind they(state department) wanted to give out unclassified information to congress for what comments congress could make publicly about the attacks. This was very early in the process. The CIA talks about the jihads demonstrating in Cairo, Egypt. They did not want to say that these jihads belonged to a particular group at the time. Yes, there were subsequent revisions to the talking points, but they gave Rice this demonstration in Cairo to run with on TV. They changed the location. The demonstration in Cairo, was a part of the early analysis of the CIA. Here is the link.
Define ... "talking points" ............. you think that is TRUTH? From the CIA?
BTW ..
.. the next revelation will be the disclosure of the Agency activities in Libya ....
...at the time of the attack and ....
...what happened to the British weapons store in our Consulate that was attacked.
Now does the Agency have a reason to lie? Originally Posted by LexusLover
Apparently this guy got shit for brains. This flighty turd does not read. The original CIA talking points were correct and 12 revisions were done to them by Odumbo's pinkos.Uncle Sh*t Head, read reply number 48. Twelve revisions?, nonsense. The demonstration by jihads in Cairo, was discussed early in the CIA analysis.
Libtards don't read or think. They only feel and they mostly feel hate. Originally Posted by Uncle Han
LL, study up. Originally Posted by flghtr65You're shittin' me, right?
You're shittin' me, right?The process for having a fighter jet sent to the area is complex. Normal protocol was followed, according to the former Ambassador and General who did the investigation. They were officials of the CIA who came up with the talking points. The CIA only has employee's in Washington DC? Were you this upset when the embassy's were attacked under Bush? Or are you are just upset now? You are like Senator Lindsay Grahm looking to create Scandal. Bush and Cheney had 4 thousand Americans murdered and not one WMD found (that would be like 20 end arounds and 20 fumbles returned for touchdowns in one game) How upset are you about that? One more time here is the original talking points 3 versions (unclassified information that could be given to the public)
Genuis, Road-Scholar, you gonna instruct me on the Agency?
And you are sighting the "Weakling Standard" for you "beef"?
Bullet points:
Libya .. training
Turkey .. shipments
Syria ... destination
British arms and trained "insurgents"
All your other bullshit is ... well .. bullshit.
The Agency was not doing ANY "analysis" .... they were on the ground. This was an "end around" with a fumble that killed FOLKS.
There are two issues for the administration and Ms. Clinton:
#1: Don't let anyone know about assistance to Syria.
#2: Don't let anyone know we had "assets" on the ground in Libya.
"Collateral" damage for the Agency. Cover up by ObamaCircus. Originally Posted by LexusLover
Embassy's were attacked and people died under Candy's watch. There were 3 congressional hearings, nothing evolved from them. Benghazi was an example of poor intelligence, just like Bush with the WMD's. Sec of Defense, Leon Panatta did not sent the jet fighter because he did not think it would get there in time. A former ambassador and general did an investigation, there was no cover up. Both parties can have trouble with poor intelligence. Originally Posted by flghtr65Most of the conversations I have with people center around the thought that since it was the anniversary of 9-11, we should have already had a sufficient force there already.
Most of the conversations I have with people center around the thought that since it was the anniversary of 9-11, we should have already had a sufficient force there already.
Most also think that the reason we did not have a proper force there was we did not want to offend the Muslims.
Keep in mind, I hang with a pretty conservative crowd, so I suppose many don't buy into that at all. Originally Posted by Jackie S
The process for having a fighter jet sent to the area is complex."fighter jet" .... ??
Now, go do your homework .... Sec of State Leon Panatta said before congress ... Originally Posted by flghtr65
the problem there is ramped up security on the anniversary of 9-11..Well had it been a truck bomb that killed the Ambassador in Lybia ...
should we ramp up security at every embassy/consulate in the mid east?
and whos to say even with extra security, the ragheads wont carry out some sort of attack ?
200 Marines stationed at a complex didn't stop a truck bomb in Lebanon
just sayin Originally Posted by CJ7
Well had it been a truck bomb that killed the Ambassador in Lybia ...
.... you might have something there ... you know. ...
On the other hand had their been 200 Marines at the U.S. Consulate when this band of "terrorists" arrived ....
.. we wouldn't be talking about a dead Ambassador ... what you think?
In fact I would imagine had their been 20 Marines the Ambassador would be alive.
What do you think?
I think Benghazi was spur of the moment riot .. Originally Posted by CJ7You mean from a video? You still buying that stupid shit?
....had there been 100 or 200 security agents at the compound, and terrorists knew they were there, a lot more than four americans would have diedo"security agents" ... you mean like this "security agent"?