Obama makes public his stance on Amb. Rice

The difference being that Powell was passing on information that everyone in government, including Defense, NSC, WH, London, Clinton, Kerry, and many many others believed to be true.

The Rice statements is just the opposite. It is clear the CIA, WH, State, and others knew blaming the incidents on a video was a sham intended to deceive and deflect the American public during the tail-end of the campaign. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So you are saying the CIA knowingly gave false intel to Congress and Sec Rice?

I wanna be clear on this one.

So you are saying the CIA knowingly gave false intel to Congress and Sec Rice?

I wanna be clear on this one. Originally Posted by markroxny

Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 11:27 AM EST, Fri November 16, 2012

Petraeus testified that he developed unclassified talking points in the days after the attack but he had no direct involvement in developing the ones used by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, King said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...ngs/index.html



Petraeus testifies on Capitol Hill on Libya attack

1:49PM EST November 16. 2012 -

WASHINGTON — The CIA told the White House that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a terror attack by an al-Qaeda linked group, but the assessment was altered by Obama administration officials, Gen. David Petraeus told the House Intelligence Committee. . . .

"The original talking points put out by the CIA were different from what was later put out," King said. "Petraeus says his initial assessment was from the start it was a terrorist attack."

However, King said Petraeus didn't know why al-Qaeda involvement was taken out of the talking points.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...aring/1708373/

Good link IB but it does not answer my question.

Does anyone here have proof that the CIA knowingly gave Sec Rice and the congress false information?

The cause of that discrepancy is unclear, King said.

Ex-CIA chief Petraeus testifies Benghazi attack was al Qaeda-linked terrorism
By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 11:27 AM EST, Fri November 16, 2012

Petraeus testified that he developed unclassified talking points in the days after the attack but he had no direct involvement in developing the ones used by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, King said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/16/politi...ngs/index.html Originally Posted by I B Hankering

He also said the changes didn't come from the white house..

According to Petraeus, his report concluded that it was a planned terrorist attack. That report then "filtered" through some bureaucracy, and came out in the end with the lie about the video. Not sure who was determined to lie about it, but ultimately, the President knew, or should have known, he was sending Amb. Rice with patently false information.

Corrupt, dishonest and incompetent. No other words describe the current Administration.

Good link IB but it does not answer my question.

Does anyone here have proof that the CIA knowingly gave Sec Rice and the congres false information? Originally Posted by markroxny

Petraeus testified that he developed unclassified talking points in the days after the attack but he had no direct involvement in developing the ones used by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

According to Petraeus, his report concluded that it was a planned terrorist attack. That report then "filtered" through some bureaucracy, and came out in the end with the lie about the video. Not sure who was determined to lie about it, but ultimately, the President knew, or should have known, he was sending Amb. Rice with patently false information.

Corrupt, dishonest and incompetent. No other words describe the current Administration. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You are still making a lot of assumptions here and drawing a conclusion you don't have enough evidence to draw yet. Not that I'm surprised.

See Rep. Peter King's press conference. If and when I find a link, I will post it. Until then, and even after that, I'm sure, you just go on believing the lies Messiah Obama tells you to believe.

He also said the changes didn't come from the white house.. Originally Posted by ekim008

"It was very clear from day one that this was a terrorist attack," Chambliss told Fox News. "This would be obvious to anyone. That is very clear."

The claim from the White House that al-Qaeda was not involved in the attack came days after the Democratic National Convention that nominated Obama for another term and during which Vice President Biden and others gave televised speeches lauding the president for crushing al-Qaeda throughout the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...aring/1708373/

I live in NY COF, King is a fucking asshole.

This all comes down to one thing.

If there is any evidence that the white house somehow took information given to them by the CIA and intentionally twisted it, then you have your conspiracy. And there will be no denying it.

However, as of yet, there is NO such evidence, only conjecture and assumptions. Let all the facts and testimony come out first, let's hear from all sides. Is that so hard?

"It was very clear from day one that this was a terrorist attack," Chambliss told Fox News. "This would be obvious to anyone. That is very clear."

The claim from the White House that al-Qaeda was not involved in the attack came days after the Democratic National Convention that nominated Obama for another term and during which Vice President Biden and others gave televised speeches lauding the president for crushing al-Qaeda throughout the world.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...aring/1708373/ Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It doesn't matter who testifies that the white house didn't make the changes you assholes will still blame Obie.By the way I'm not defending him just LMAO at the wingers who won't quit beating the dead horse.If someone changed the statement before it got to the white house they were bull shitted just like the rest...

Good question; who told Rice to go out and promote the false story of a video being the cause when the CIA, Obama, and Dept of State knew otherwise ???????????????


Enquiring minds want to know..............

So you are saying the CIA knowingly gave false intel to Congress and Sec Rice?

I wanna be clear on this one. Originally Posted by markroxny

Does anyone here have proof that the CIA knowingly gave Sec Rice and the congress false information? Originally Posted by markroxny

How would anyone on this board have ...

..."proof that the CIA knowingly gave Sec Rice and the congress false information"?

If the CIA Director says he sent out a memo that said XYZ, which he claims was his assessment, and then the Ambassador to the U.N. says she got a memo saying ABC, it is rather clear that:

1. The CIA Director is lying
2. Some between the two changed the memo language or
3. The U.N. Ambassador is lying.

You pick.

It doesn't matter who testifies that the white house didn't make the changes you assholes will still blame Obie.By the way I'm not defending him just LMAO at the wingers who won't quit beating the dead horse.If someone changed the statement before it got to the white house they were bull shitted just like the rest... Originally Posted by ekim008

turn on Fox News, Beck, Rush et al and if the comments on this thread dont mirror theirs I'll apologize for COF being such a moron ...

It doesn't matter who testifies that the white house didn't make the changes you assholes will still blame Obie.By the way I'm not defending him just LMAO at the wingers who won't quit beating the dead horse.If someone changed the statement before it got to the white house they were bull shitted just like the rest... Originally Posted by ekim008

It's Obama's Administration. Obama said he sent Rice out with the "best intelligence" they had. That was a lie. It is no one else's fault BUT Obama!

Gawd, you are stupid!